An act regulating the price of gas is not unconstitutional, as impairing the right of contract, provided the rate is not so low as to deprive the stockholders of the right to a reasonable profit on the actual value of the plant and property ; Richman v. Gas Co., 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871.
A municipal ordinance authorizing a nat ural gas company to charge certain monthly or annual rates does not authorize the com pany to exact a meter rate from one person alone if it is substantially higher than the flat rate charged to other customers, but the mere requirement that one consumer shall pay by the meter rate, while others pay by the flat rate, Is not a violation of equal pro tection of the laws ; Indiana N. & I. Gas Co. v. State, 158 Ind. 516, 63 N. E. 220, 57 L. R. A. 761.
Where a statute fixing the maximum rates for gas was attacked by the gas company as unconstitutional, the consumers were en titled to a continuance of the service on a payment of the rates so prescribed until de termination of the constitutional question, the constitutionality of the statute being pre sumed until a judicial determination to the contrary ; Richman v. Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 216, 100 N. Y. Supp. 81, id., 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871.
The power of a state legislature to regu late telephone rates is plenary notwithstand ing the instruments are patented ; Central Union Tel. Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721; after the company has accepted an ordinance imposing limitations of rates, it is estopped to deny its validity on the, ground of unreasonableness ; Charles Simons Sons Co. v. Tel. Co., 99 Md. 141, 57 Atl. 193, 63 L. R. A. 727.
The police power of the state to regulate street car fares does not give the legislature power to violate a charter contract fixing them ; Indianapolis v. Trust Co., 83 Fed. 529, 27 C. C. A. 580.
An act of legislature limiting the fares of a street railroad company to three cents does not impair the obligation of any contract made with the city when the company took possession of the streets, as the city has no power to determine such fares as against the legislature ; Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139, 47 N. E. 525, 51 N. E. 80, 41 L. R. A. 337.
An ordinance, legally adopted, providing that a street railway company shall not ex ceed a five cent fare, gives the company, upon accepting it, a contract right to charge that rate, which cannot be reduced by the city without the consent of the company ; Detroit v. R. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 22 Sup. Ct. 410, 46 L. Ed. 592.
An act merely fixing the maximum rate of toll to be charged by a turnpike does not constitute a contract between the state and the turnpike company, so as to deprive the state of its power thereafter to modify or regulate the rates; Covington & L. T. R. Co.
v. Sanford, 20 S. W. 1031, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 689; but the right to regulate tolls on a railroad may be granted to the company by the legislature, so as to render an attempt by a succeeding legislature to fix the rates an impairment of a contract within the federal constitution ; Pingree v. R. Co., 118 Mich. 314, 76 N. W. 635, 53 L. R. A. 274. Rates charged on a turnpike must be es tablished by the company where .there is no law or valid usage to the contrary ; Wayne P. Co. v. Bosworth, 91 Ind. 210.
Where a steamship company made a lower rate to those merchants who would not ship by a rival line, it was held there was no illegal discrimination, since the concession was offered to all who would conform to the condition ; Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 25 L. R. A. 674, 42 Am. St. Rep. 712. It is held not illegal to make reductions to large customers as such ; as transportation in large and small quantities does not involve the same amount of trouble and expense ; 4 Nev. & M. 7; 4 C. B. N. S. 366 ; Silkman v. Board, 152 N. Y. 327, 46 N. E. 612, 37 L. R. A. 827 (a water company) ; contra, Scofield v. R. Co., 43 Ohio St. 571, 3 N. E. 907, 54 Am. Rep. 846 ; to charge lower proportionate rates upon long press messages than upon ordinary short commercial mes sages ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765, affirming id. 58 Neb. 192, 78 N. W. 519 ; or for hauling coal to a manufacturing com pany than to a coal dealer ; Hoover v. R. Co., .156 Pa. 220, 27 Atl. 282, 22 L. R. A. 263, 36 Am. St. Rep. 43 ; or for the transportation of ten or more persons at a rate less than to a single individual for a like transportation on the same trip ; Interstate Commerce Com mission v. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 844, 36 L. Ed. 699 ; or to charge a higher rate to persons paying their fare on the train than to those purchasing tickets at the place pro vided for that purpose ; Wilsey v. R. Co., 83 Ky. 511; or to charge a higher freight rate on live stock than on dressed meat and packing house products; Interstate Commerce Commission v. R. Co., 209 U. S. 108, 28 Sup. Ct. 493, 52 L. Ed. 705. Railroads may not discriminate against the people of any one state, but are not necessarily bound to give the same rates to the people of all the states as the kind and amount and cost of• business vary in the several states ; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819.