CORPORATIONS 935

currents of hot or cold air for motive power, heating, cooking, refrigera-
tion, or for any public use or service in any city, town or village in this
State.

The public service commission law is not invalid under art. 8 of the Declaration
of Rights directing that the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the govern-
ment shall be kept separate, nor is it open to the objection that it makes no pro-
vision for an appeal to the courts from an order of the commission-see secs. 415 and
418. Telephone companies are subject to the operation of the public service commis-
sion law—see section 410. The purpose of the public service commission law is to
place all corporations handling public utilities under supervision and control of said
commission with power in the commission to regulate rates, but until the commission
does so regulate, any acts in force respecting rates remain unimpaired. See note to
sec. 305. Gregg v. Public Service Commission, 121 Md. 1; Chenoweth v. Public Service
Commission, 143 Md. 627.

The public service commission law does not take away the right of a railroad to con-
demn property and rights for its construction. The commission is not the tribunal
to determine such questions as whether a charter is valid, that being purely a judicial
question. If the commission authorizes the construction of a road, such authorization
includes the right to cross tracks along the route. The commission may determine
whether a crossing shall be at, under or above grade; such determination may be made
after the passage of an order approving construction of road. City & Sub. R. R. Co. v.
W., W. & G. R. R. Co., 122 Md. 656.

No power is conferred upon the public service commission to order a railroad to
rebuild and operate a branch which was abandoned long before the passage of the
public service commission law; what amounts to an abandonment. Pub. Ser. Com. v.
P., B. & W. R. R. Co., 122 Md. 439.

In view of the public service commission law, so much of sec. 87 of the charter of
Crisfield as attempts to invest it with the power to regulate telephone rates, violates
that portion of art. 3, sec. 33, of the Md. Constitution, which prohibits the passage
of a special law for a case covered by an existing general law. Intent of the legislature
in adopting the P. S. C. law. Distinction between special and public local acts. Cris-
field v. C. & P. Tel. Co., 131 Md. 444.

It is immaterial whether a water supply is being furnished by an individual or a
corporation; all alike are within the jurisdiction of the commission under the ex-
press language of the portion of this section dealing with water companies. The
supplying of water to about one hundred dwellings is a public service. The police
power extends not only to the regulation of rates but to other matters connected
with a service afforded the public. Regulation of water rates held not to impair
obligation of contract; police power. Yeatman v. Pub. Ser. Com., 126 Md. 516.

The P. S. C. has no jurisdiction over controversies as to the correctness of water
bills, or how much the consumer owes. Injunction to prevent cutting off of water.
Carter v. Suburban Water Co., 131 Md. 95.

The owner of an automobile who carries five men to and from their work for an
agreed compensation is not a common carrier and does not operate his car "for
public use," and hence need not comply with art. 56, sec. 292. Towers v. Wildason,
135 Md. 683. Cf. Goldsworthy v. Public Service Comm., 141 Md. 680.

As to public motor vehicles and the duties of the public service commission rela-
tive thereto, see art. 56, secs. 292 and 303, et seq.

The Baltimore Refrigerating and Heating Company held to be at least a quasi
public service corporation. The definition of "heating and refrigerating companies"
in this section, referred to. Homer v. Balto. Rfg. & Heating Co., 117 Md. 420.

This section referred to in holding that Northern Central Railway Company might
issue securities with approval of Interstate Commerce Commission, as authorized by
sec. 20A of Transportation Act, 1920, without securing approval of Public Service Com-
mission of Maryland. Public Serv. Commn, v. N. C. Rwy. Co., 146 Md. 583.

The commission has no jurisdiction to authorize sale by municipality of property
dedicated to public use; powers conferred upon the commission are of a regulatory
nature and do not include either granting or withdrawal of franchise. Worcester v.
Hancock, 151 Md. 678.

This section et seq., look to same end as art. 56, sec. 311, et seq. Rutledge Assn. v.
Baughman, 153 Md. 301.

Secs. 344-429 of this article repealed sec. 3 of art. 37 and the provisions of secs. 4-15
of said article, vesting regulatory and supervisory powers in the Mayor of Baltimore
or the County Commissioners of the Counties. Bay Bridge Ferry Corp. v. Queen
Anne's Co., 160 Md. 398.

Secs. 344-429 referred to in construing art. 27, sec. 184. State v. Coblentz, 167 Md. 527.

Cited but not construed in Parlett, etc., v. Tidewater Lines, 164 Md. 411.

Cited but not construed in Public Service Commn, v. Williams, 166 Md. 283.

See notes to sec. 391.