Pennsylvania Water Co. v. Pittsburg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 47, Oct. T., 1909, by defendants, from decree of C. P, No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1908, No. 690, on bill in equity in case of Pennsylvania Water Company v. City of Pittsburg et al. Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Miller, J., specially presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was decree awarding injunction.
1DissentJustice Mestrezat
In the majority opinion, it is said: “The ordinance of the borough of Brushton and the written acceptance of it by the appellee (Pennsylvania Water Company), together with the latter’s performance, unquestionably constitute a binding contract.” And further: “What does concern-us is the right in the appellee to exercise the privilege it acquired under its contract with the borough of Brushton. That right was in effect exclusive as against the borough of Brush-ton so long as the contract held.” From this assumption of the existence of a contract between the borough and the water company,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Knoxville Water Co. v. KnoxvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Coosaw Mining Co. v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- White v. City of MeadvilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Skaneateles Water Works Co. v. SkaneatelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Carlisle Gas & Water Co. v. Carlisle Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.