The decision of the Supreme Court, in the Omaha Water-Works case, decided on May 31st, 1910 (_Supreme Court Reporter_, July 1st, 1910), is of general interest in its discussion of the procedure of appraisers in making a water-works appraisal, and in the distinction drawn between appraisals and arbitrations; but it does not touch on appraisal methods or elements of value, except to discuss "going values." The language of Judge Lurton on this point is as follows: "The option to purchase excluded any value on account of unexpired franchise, but it did not limit the value to the bare bones of the plant, its physical properties, such as its lands, its machinery, its water-pipes or settling reservoirs, nor to what it would take to reproduce each of its physical features. The value, in equity and justice, must include whatever is contributed by the fact of the connection of the items making a complete and operating plant. "The difference between a dead plant and a live one is a real value, and is independent of any franchise to go on, or any mere good will as between such a plant and its customers. That kind of good will, as suggested in Willcox _vs._ Consolidated Gas Company (212 U. S., 19), is of little or no commercial value when the business is, as here, a natural monopoly, with which the customer must deal, whether he will or not. That there is a difference between even the cost of duplication, less depreciation, of the elements making up the water company plant and the commercial value of the business as a going concern is evident. Such an allowance was upheld in National Water Works Company _vs._ Kansas City (62 Fed., 853), where the opinion was by Mr. Justice Brewer. [This decision is quoted in the foregoing pages.] We can add nothing to the reasoning of the learned Justice, and shall not try to. That case has been approved and followed in Gloucester Water Supply Company _vs._ Gloucester (179 Mass., 365, and 60 N. E., 977), and Norwich Gas and Electric Company _vs._ Norwich (76 Conn., 565). No such question was considered in Knoxville Water Company (212 U. S., 1) or in Willcox _vs._ Consolidated Gas Company (212 U. S., 19). Both cases were rate cases and did not concern the ascertainment of value under contracts of sale." The writer does not read into the language of this decision an approval of a separate element of value to be called "going concern value" or "going value" in addition to other non-physical values, but rather a recognition of the fact that certain non-physical elements of value, by whatever name they may be called, must be taken into account in arriving at the fair and equitable final figure of value of a live and operating concern for the purpose of carrying out a contract of sale. It appears to be doubtful whether the Court can be construed as approving such an element of value in rate cases.