Railroad Commission—Power to Compel Corporation to Dedicate Property to Public Use.—The state railroad commission has no power to compel a corporation which owns property in private right, and has not dedicated it to any public use, to apply it to a public use of any kind.

Id.—Water Company—Whether Engaged in Public Service—Power Conferred by Articles of Incorporation—Actually Engaging in Public Service.-—The fact that its articles of incorporation empower a corporation to engage in public service does not, of itself, constitute proof that it is engaged in public service, or that it has dedicated such property as it may own to such service. One may acquire and hold a water supply and waterworks and thereby distribute and sell water for domestic use and irrigation or other purposes, without engaging in public service. The mere fact, therefore, that a company having such powers has acquired a water supply and constructed waterworks constituting a system which it is operating for compensation, does not necessarily justify the conclusion that it is engaged in public service, or that its water is dedicated to public use. The only effect of the adoption of such articles by a corporation is to give it the capacity to engage in such public service if it so desires. After having become incorporated in this manner, it has the power to engage in such service in the same sense that an individual has power so to do. It may or may not do so, and until it does, it cannot be said to be subject to the jurisdiction of the state railroad commission.

Id.—Finding of Bailroad Commission—Whether Shows Corporation - Engaged in Public Service.—A finding by the railroad commission that a corporation owns and is operating a water system for compensation, and that it has a water supply sufficient in quantity to supply a certain applicant, is not the equivalent of a finding either that it is engaged in operating its plant for public use, or, if it is, that the applicant is one of the persons entitled as a beneficiary of such use.

Id.—Corporation Applying Part of Property to Public Service— Compelling Extension of Service.—The railroad commission cannot, whenever it finds a corporation engaged in public service and applying a part of its property to such service, take the entire property of the corporation and compel the dedication thereof to public use and direct its distribution to such portions of the public as to the commission may seem best.

Id.-—Interpretation of Public Utilities Act—Extension of Public Service.—While sections 5 and 36 of the Public Utilities Act, when taken literally, seem to empower the railroad commission to direct any public utility to extend its plant and enlarge the territory supplied by it in such maner as the commission shall judge advisable, a proper interpretation of these provisions must be that they are limited in their application to such public service corporations as may have devoted their entire property to the use of the entire public, or to those which may have undertaken to supply a certain district, such as a city, and dedicated their property to that service, and which afterward may have failed or refused to give to such district an adequate service, or failed or refused to extend the system and supply to parts of the district, when it was within its means to have done so and such extension would not be unreasonable.

Id.—Water Company—Bight to Make Limited Dedication to Public Use.—One owning a water supply is not compelled to dedicate all of it to public use. He may dedicate a part of it, only, to such use, preserving the remainder for private purposes or for private sale or disposition as he sees fit. And a water company has the right to make such limited dedication, and to decline to furnish its water to persons not within the area it has undertaken to serve.

Id.—Eight of Individual to Water Supply—Condition Precedent.— The fact that a corporation is the qwner of and is operating a water system for compensation, and the fact that it has the power by reason of its articles of incorporation to engage in public service, are not sufficient to authorize the conclusion that any particular person is a beneficiary of the use which such company is administering, or that any of the outlying territory is entitled to the service. It still remains necessary to ascertain the fact that such person is such beneficiary; and that he is within the district, and of the class, for which such dedication is made.

Id.—Scope of Decision—District to Which Water Dedicated.— The concurring opinion in this case contains the only propositions which are to be considered as decided. It does not hold that the plaintiff company is not a public utility, or that it is not engaged in distributing water for public use; it merely declares that the land of the claimant, Glass, is not, and is not found by the commission to be, within the district, or area, to the use of which the water owned or controlled by that company is dedicated, and therefor that he is not entitled to demand distribution thereof to his land.

Id.—Opinion in Bank—Necessity of Concurrence of Four Justices. In the decision of a case before the supreme court in Bank, the concurrence of at least four justices is necessary, and any proposition or principle stated in an opinion is not to be taken as the opinion of the court, unless it is agreed to by at least four of the justices.