owner is not charged a rate of return on its investment. It is true that the city’s corporate funds have not been used to pay for the operation of the system. It may be true that all users have paid in enough money that Chicago has not been required to contribute additional sums for debt retirement. That does not mean, however, that suburban users become owners of the system simply because they pay the rates charged by Chicago. See Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. New York Telephone Co. (1926), 271 U.S. 23, 32, 70 L. Ed. 808, 813, 46 S. Ct. 363, 366 (“Customers pay for service, not for the property used to render it. *** By paying bills for service they do not acquire any interest, legal or equitable, in the property used for their convenience or in the funds of the company”) (<HOLDING>); cf. Du Page Utility Co. v. Illinois Commerce
holding plaintiff entitled to depreciation after repairs in determining the vehicles value at the time of the theft allowance must be made for depreciation then accrued holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company holding that after two years of litigation the employer had waived any right it had to compel arbitration holding that customers had no right to compel telephone company to make up deficiencies in future net earnings out of depreciation reserves accumulated in the past holding that customers of registered representative were customers of memberfirm