Denial of equal protection and privileges as II. Rights of consumers and public. apparatus, is an unlawful trespass, at least, when such meter and connecting pipes belong to the company. Consolidated Gas Co. v. Blondell, 46 L.R.A. 187, 89 Md. 732, 43 Atl. 817. III. Municipal or governmental regulation. a. In general. § 13. Generally. to, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, § 415 b. Regulation of, as a taking of property for public use, see EMINENT DOMAIN, § 160 b. Burden of proof as to rates, see EVIDENCE, Mandamus to require public utilities com- Suit by municipality to restrain excessive charges, see PARTIES, § 67 ce. Presumption in favor of order of public service commission reducing rates, see PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS, § 15 n. Review by court of order of public utilities commission fixing rates, see PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS, § 15 r, 6. Power of municipality to regulate, see PUBLIC UTILITIES, § 12 n. Partial invalidity of statute as to, see STAT- cants along its line, see ante, § 9 g. Constitutionality of statute prohibiting waste, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, $$ 276 a, 504. Conclusiveness of legislative determination as to use of flambeau lights, see COURTS, § 95 g. Injunction against waste, see INJUNCTION, § 79 e, f. Control of Public Service Commission over contract between city and company, see PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS, § 4 k-m. a. The use of natural gas may be made a. Municipal authority to regulate the the subject of police regulation. Lewisville rates which a gas company may charge canNatural Gas Co. v. State ex rel. Reynolds, not be implied from statutes authorizing 21 L.R.A. 734, 135 Ind. 49, 34 N. E. 702. cities to provide for lighting streets subb. The only means by which the trans-ject to such regulations as they may by portation of natural gas beyond the limits ordinance impose, or to provide reasonable of a state could be restrained would be by regulation for the safe supply, distribution the exercise of the police power. Manu- and consumption of gas, or to erect or aufacturers' Gas & Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural thorize gas works or to provide for the genGas & Oil Co. 53 L.R.A. 134, 155 Ind. 545, eral welfare. St. Marys v. Hope Natural 58 N. E. 706. Gas Co. 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 994, 71 W. Va. 76, 76 S. E. 841. c. A municipality which has granted a natural gas company an indeterminate b. In the absence of a delegation thereof franchise permitting it to lay pipes therein by the legislature, express or necessarily and supply gas to it and its inhabitants implied, a city or town has no power to may compel the gas company to exercise its regulate rates for natural gas furnished franchise therein fairly and without dis- by a person or corporation for public concrimination, so long as such company elects sumption in such city or town, otherwise to exercise its rights thereunder. East Ohio than by contract with such person or corGas Co. v. Akron, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 92, 81poration, by the terms of the grant of franchise. St. Marys v. Hope Natural Gas Co. 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 994, 71 W. Va. 76, 7C S. E. 841. (Annotated) Ohio St. 33, 90 N. E. 40. d. The requirements as to gas pressure made by N. Y. Laws 1905, chap. 736, and Laws 1903, chap. 125, fixing gas rates in c. The price at which natural gas should New York city, are confiscatory, where, to be furnished cannot be regulated by an ordiput this pressure upon the mains and other nance under a general power to provide reaservice pipes, in their present condition, is sonable regulations for the safe supply, dis to run great risk of explosion and conse-tribution, and consumption of natural gas. quent disaster, and to eliminate such dan- Lewisville Natural Gas Co. v. State ex rel. ger requires an expenditure of many mil- Reynolds, 21 L.R.A. 734, 135 Ind. 49, 34 lions of dollars, from which no return can N. E. 702. be had at the rates established by those acts. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. d. An ordinance limiting the price to be charged for gas furnished to private consumers, is, in the absence of legislative authority, invalid, at least as affecting a gas company which has obtained consent to the use of streets without any condition imposed except as to the rates to be charged for public buildings. Re Pryor, 29 L.R.A. 398, 55 Kan. 724, 41 Pac. 958. e. A provision in a municipal ordinance granting a natural gas company the right to lay pipes and supply consumers, that the city shall not fix, or attempt to fix, the rate at which gas shall be supplied, below a specified sum for a period of ten years, III. Municipal or governmental regulation. b. As to rates. does not raise an implied contract that the, f. Authority to charge 80 cents per thousand cubic feet for gas is conferred upon a gas company by a municipal ordinance that it shall not charge, or receive a higher rate than 90 cents per thousand cubic feet, and each consumer shall be entitled to a discount of 10 cents per thousand cubic feet for prompt payment. Boerth v. Detroit City Gas Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1197, 152 Mich. 654, 116 N. W. 628. g. Sufficient standard for the action of a commission empowered to fix the rates to be charged for gas is established by a provision that the rate shall be within the limits provided by law, which, in the absence of statute, means that the rate must be reasonable. Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 713, 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693. h. The mere provision in a statute empowering a commission to fix the rates to be charged by gas companies, that the agents of the commission shall inspect the plant and books of the corporation, does not authorize it to fix rates upon the report of the agents, where the statute also provides for a public hearing after notice. Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 713, 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693. § 15. Under franchise provisions. Injunction to prevent violation of, see INJUNCTION, § 34 a. See also ante, § 14 e. e. A municipal corporation has power to stipulate as to the maximum rates to be charged by a gas company when allowing it o lay pipes in the streets, under a statute giving it exclusive power over its streets, ighways, and alleys. Muncie Natural Gas Co. v. Muncie, 60 L.R.A. 822, 160 Ind. 97, 66 N. E. 436. f. A gas company, while enjoying a contract permitting it to lay pipes in the streets of a city, cannot attack the power of the city to stipulate in the contract as to the maximum rates to be charged for gas. Muncie Natural Gas Co. v. Muncie, 60 L.R.A. 822, 160 Ind. 97, 66 N. E. 436. g. Where a gas company operating in a municipality under a franchise granted by such municipality to occupy the streets with pipes to convey gas for public consumption, and authorizing specific rates of charges for fire, changed its charge from a specific rate to a charge by meter.-a change that was sustained by the courts upon a suit brought by the municipality to question it,-and ontinued to charge this rate, with the acquiescence of the town, for thirteen years, vaen it increased its rate, whereupon the nunicipality passed a general ordinance al¡owing a charge of the meter rate first established and prohibiting a higher charge, a modification of the original ordinance was effected, and a new contract created stablishing the rate first established; and in increase of the rate could not be effected without the consent of the municipality. St. larys v. Hope Natural Gas Co. 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 994, 71 W. Va. 76, 76 S. E. 841. a. A municipal corporation has authority to fix by contract the rates which shall be paid by its inhabitants for gas furnished 16. Reduced rate to public schools. by a public-supply corporation under statutory authority to consent to the laying of poration Commission to furnish gas to the a. A gas company directed by the Corthe gas mains in its streets under such rea- public schools of a city at a rate less than sonable regulations as it may prescribe. hat charged other consumers is not entitled Boerth v. Detroit City Gas Co. 18 L.R.A. o complain of the discrimination, in the (N.S.) 1197, 152 Mich. 654, 116 N. W. 628. absence of a showing that the rate fixed by (Annotated) the Commission, in connection with the b. A provision in a municipal ordinance ates charged to other consumers, deprived granting a franchise to erect and operate works to furnish natural gas for consump-nvestment. Guthrie Gaslight, F. & Improv. he gas company of a just return upon its tion in the town or city may contain fixed Co. v. Board of Education, L.R.A.1918D, rates or charges for gas; and such limita300, Okla. 19 tion is valid, and, when accepted by the grantee, is a contract binding the grantee of such franchise. St. Marys v. Hope Natural Gas Co. 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 994, 71 W. Va. 76, 76 S. E. 841. c. The power to fix reasonable maximum rates to be charged for natural gas by the holders of a franchise to lay gas pipes in the streets is included in the right of control over property devoted to a public use. Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co. 15 L.R.A. 321, 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853. 166 Pac. 128. (Annotated) b. An order of the Corporation Commission requiring a gas company to furnish its product to the public schools of a city at a rate less than that charged to other consumers is not invalid by reason of the disrimination in favor of the public schools. Guthrie Gaslight, F. & Improv. Co. v. Board of Education, L.R.A.1918D, 900, - Okla. —, (Annotated) 166 Pac. 128. § 17. Reasonableness. d. A municipal corporation has the power to fix maximum rates to be charged for a. A provision that a rate to be charged natural gas by the holders of a franchise, by gas companies for gas furnished consumunder Ind. Acts 1887, p. 36 (Elliott's Supp. ers shall continue for a period of three years $800), which gives power to provide reason- after it has been fixed by the commission is able regulations for the safe supply, distri- not so unreasonable as to render the stat III. Municipal or governmental regulation. b. As to rates. ute invalid. Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga of a navigable river beyond high-water Gas, E. L. & P. Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 713, mark, if it is in peaceable possession of it 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693. as part of its plant, that fact may be conb. Gas rates which will yield to a cor-sidered in estimating the value of the plant poration having a monopoly of the gas service in New York city a return of 6 per cent upon the fair value of the property actually used by such company in its business are not confiscatory. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. c. A discrimination between the individual consumer and the city in the provisions of N. Y. Laws 1905, chap. 736, and Laws 1906, chap. 125, fixing gas rates in New York city, is not material to the inquiry as to the reasonableness of such rates if the total profits from the gas supplied to all consumers is sufficient to insure the requisite return upon the property used by the gas company in its business. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. 2. Matters to be considered in fixing rates. for fixing the rates of its product. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. d. The value of land purchased and held by a gas company for the needs of possible future growth cannot be considered in estimating the value of the plant for fixing rates. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. e. Discarded equipment cannot be considered in estimating the value of a gas plant for the purpose of fixing rates for its product. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. f. In estimating the value of pipes of a gas plant laid under ground, for the purpost of determining the value of its plant to fix the rates for its product, the price not the criterion, but the cost, the ordinary of iron on the day the rates are fixed is selling price, and the present price should be considered in connection with depreciation by inevitable decay. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 E.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa. 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. § 18. Generally. Prejudicial error in action for injury by, see APPEAL AND ERROR, § 924 d. a. The segregation for the purpose of rate making for gas supplied by a corporation doing business over a large portion of the state, of a thickly populated district formerly supplied by a different corporation which has been absorbed by the present one. where conditions are good for efficient and g. In fixing the value of a gas plant for economical manufacture and distribution, the purpose of establishing rates for its from the rest of the state where such con- product, the cost of a pipe laid to supply a ditions are not so good, is just and reason-neighboring village, which enforces the sysable. Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Comrs. L.R.A.1918A, 421, 87 N. J. L. 597, 94 Atl. 634. § 19. Valuation franchises. of property and a. In ascertaining the value of the prop erty of a gas company or the amount of capital actually expended for the purpose of fixing rates, the cost of replacing pavement now in the streets, but not there at the time the mains were laid, is not to be taken into consideration. People ex rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Willcox, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) i, 210 N. Y. 479, 104 N. E. 911. (Annotated) b. The value of a gas plant at a particular time for the purpose of determining the justness of rates cannot be determined by mere addition of the separate value of its component parts, nor from the cost alone, nor from what it might have been formerly sold at, if such price was influenced by excessive rates, nor from what it might cost to replace alone, but the value of the system as completed, earning a present income, is the criterion to be adopted. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. c. Although a gas company could not acquire title to land reclaimed from the bed tem and from which some residents of the city are supplied, should be apportioned between the two places. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025. 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. h. In establishing the value of gas pipes laid beneath street pavements, for the purpose of fixing the value of the plant to establish rates for its product, the entire estimated cost of opening and replacing the pavement is not the criterion of value, where there are parallel alleys and parkings in which pipes might be laid. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. i. The valuation of the franchise of the constituent gas companies as fixed by them when organizing a consolidated corporation pursuant to N. Y. Laws 1884, chap. 367, which valuation was included in the total sum for which the consolidated corporation issued its stock, must be accepted by the courts, in testing the reasonableness of legis lative regulation of gas rates, as conclusive of such value at the time of consolidation, where the validity of the agreement fixing the valuation has always been recognized, III. Municipal or governmental regulation. b. As to rates. and the stock has earned large dividends, viewed in the light of the return on the inand has been largely dealt in for many vestment, the present value of the plant years on the basis of the validity of the should be regarded as the investment. Pubvaluation and of the stock. Willcox v. Con- lic Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public solidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, Utility Comrs. L.R.A.1918A, 421, 87 N. J. 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. L. 597, 94 Atl. 634. Rep. 192. j. The assessed value of taxation of the franchises of a gas company furnishes no criterion by which to ascertain their value, when testing the reasonableness of gas rates as fixed by statute, where the taxes are treated by the company as part of its operating expenses, to be paid out of its earnings before the net amount applicable to dividends can be ascertained. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. k. Increase since consolidation of the tangible assets of a consolidated gas company and in the amount of gas supplied by it does not justify the court, when testing the reasonableness of the rates fixed by statute, in attributing a proportional increase to the value of the franchises as fixed by the constituent companies at the time of consolidation. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. § 21. good will. a. Good will cannot be taken into consideration in fixing the value of a gas plant for the purpose of establishing rates for its product, where it has been granted a monopoly in the community. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. b. No allowance for the value of the good will should be made in estimating the value of the property of a gas company upon which it is entitled to earn a fair return, for the purpose of testing the reasonableness of the rates fixed by statute, where such company is secure from possible competition. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. (Annotated) § 22. -going value. a. The fact that a gas plant is in successful operation constitutes an element of value to be considered in fixing the basis upon which income may be allowed in establishing rates for its product so far as it can be done and still keep the cost reasonable. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. 1. In fixing the value of the franchises of a public service corporation for the purpose of establishing rates, nothing should be included because of earning capacity, although such element is taken into consideration for purposes of taxation, and affects the value of the stock, since the state's omission to enforce reasonable rates in the b. The value of the property of a gas compast, which may have resulted in high earn- pany organized to serve the public, upon ing power, does not affect the duty to charge which rates are to be based, should include only reasonable rates in the future, and the "going value," which includes the permisright to exact reasonable rates cannot be sion which it has to use its property for capitalized so as to entitle the corporation the purposes of its incorporation and to to earnings on the increased value thereby occupy public streets with its mains, and added, since such addition would at once also the burdens which it has assumed and make the rate unreasonable. Public Service | performed in the public interest, as conGas Co. v. Public Utility Comrs. L.R.A. templated by the legislature. Public Serv1917B, 930, N. J., 94 Atl. 634. ice Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Comrs. L.R.A.1917B, 930, 87 N. J. L. 597, 94 Atl. 634. m. In fixing the rates of a gas company in a municipality, no allowance should be made for the value of special franchises where they are not legally exclusive and the state retains the right to fix rates. Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Comrs. L.R.A.1918A, 421, 87 N. J. L. 597, 94 Atl. 634. § 20. - time of valuation. c. In fixing the present value of a gas plant for rate-making purposes, an allow ance should be made for going value. Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Comrs. L.R.A.1918A, 421, 87 N. J. L. 597, 94 Atl. 634. 1 d. "Going value" is to be considered as a distinct item in fixing the rates to be a. The valuation of the property of a gas charged by a gas company. People ex rel. company, upon which it is entitled to a fair Kings County Lighting Co. v. Willcox, 51 return, must, as a general rule, be deter-L.R.A. (N.S.) 1, 210 N. Y. 479, 104 N. E. mined as of the time when the inquiry is 911. made regarding the reasonableness of rates e. "Going value," for the purpose of fix fixed by statute, giving the company the benefit of any increase in the value of the property since it was acquired. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192. b. In determining whether or not the rate fixed by a public utilities commission for gas in a municipality is reasonable when ing the rates of a gas company, is an amount equal to the deficiency of net earnings below a fair return on the actual investment, due solely to the time and expenditures reasonably necessary and proper to the development of the business and property to its present stage, and not comprised in the valuation of the physical property. People ex rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Will III. Municipal or governmental regulation. b. As to rates. cox, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1, 210 N. Y. 479, 104 IV. Injuries from; negligence as to. N. E. 911. f. The item of going value is eliminated in fixing rates for a gas company if it has already received a fair return on its investment, either by charging rates which give it a fair return from the start, or which give it more than a fair return after the business has been developed. People ex rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Willcox, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1, 210 N. Y. 479, 104 N. E. 911. g. Where a gas company paid no dividends for a number of years after it began to do business, going value is to be allowed in fixing its rates where it was not due to bad management, the accumulation of surplus, or to betterments which have been allowed for in the structural valuation. People ex rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Willcox, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1, 210 N. Y. 479, 104 N. E. 911. § 23. Allowance for depreciation. a. In fixing the rate to be charged for gas by a public service corporation, it should be allowed to provide a fund sufficient to replace the different parts of the plant when it shall become necessary. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. § 24. Cost of manufacturing. a. In estimating the cost of manufacturing gas, that consumed for the purpose of the plant should be computed at cost. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. § 25. Gross receipts of company. a. In general. § 28. Generally. In ejection of poisonous gas by landlord in- City's liability for injury by, see MUNICIPAL Liability for injury to persons going to Injury to employee by escape of, from ammonia tank, see MASTER AND SERVANT, § 209 o. Proximate cause of injury or death by generally, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, § 13 i. Permitting gas to remain in mine, as proximate cause of injury to employee, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, § 86 c. a. A gas company is bound to that degree of care which the nature of the article it deals in, and the consequences to be apprehended from an accident, call for. Schmeer v. Gaslight Co. 30 L.R.A. 653, 147 N. Y. 529, 42 N. E. 202. b. The care imposed by law upon gas companies in handling their product is not ordinary care, as distinguished from extraordinary care, but due care, or care commensurate with the danger. Gould v. Winona Gas Co. 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 889, 100 Minn. 258, 111 N. W. 254. c. Persons engaged in the manufacture and distribution of gas, are required to use in guarding against injury to persons and property, a degree of care commensurate to the danger. Pulaski Gas Light Co. v. MeClintock, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 825, 97 Ark. 576, 134 S. W. 1189. d. A person or corporation furnishing a. In ascertaining the gross receipts of a natural gas for use in dwellings is bound to gas company for the purpose of fixing its exercise care, skill, and diligence proportionrates, the annual appreciation of the value ate to the danger. Barrickman v. Marion of its land should not be considered. Peo-Oil Co. 44 L.R.A. 92, 45 W. Va. 634, 32 S. ple ex rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Willcox, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1, 210 N. Y. 479, 104 N. E. 911. § 26. Collection expenses. a. No allowance for collection expenses should be made in fixing the price of gas at a flat rate without discount for prompt payment, where the company may require security or a deposit of money in advance, or otherwise render collection as certain and inexpensive as it was under the discount method. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. § 27. Promotion expenses. E. 327. e. It is the duty of a gas company to use all reasonable precautions to confine its product within the channels where it may olidated Gas Co. v. Connor, 32 L.R.A. be employed with safety and utility. Con(N.S.) 809, 114 Md. 140, 78 Atl. 725. f. It is incumbent on a gas company to and the failure to inspect at reasonable inuse ordinary care in inspecting its mains ville Gas Co. v. Guelat, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) tervals is evidence of negligence. 703, 150 Ky. 583, 150 S. W. 656. Louis sonable care in the inspection of its pipes, g. A gas company must use due and reaand must repair defects in the same, whether aused by its own fault or not. Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. Schneider, 33 L.R.A. 366, 62 Ark. 109, 34 S. W. 547. 29. As to pipes in highway. See also post, §§ 33 c, j, k, 35 d, e, i. a. No allowance can be made for the expense of promoting and organizing the company, in fixing the value of a gas plant for the purpose of estimating rate for its prod-§ uct. Cedar Rapids Gaslight Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1025, 144 Iowa, 426, 120 N. W. 966, aff'd in 223 U. S. 655, 56 L. ed. 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389. (Annotated) a. A gas company is bound to use its rights in public streets and to conduct its operations so as not to inflict injury upon neighboring property. Evans v. Keystone |