Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 248, dismissing exceptions to referee’s report in case of Spring Brook Water Company, now amended to- Peoples’ Water Company, v. Pittston. Exceptions to referee’s report.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 102, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 248, dismissing exceptions to referee’s report in case of Spring Brook Water Company, now amended to- Peoples’ Water Company, v. Pittston. Exceptions to referee’s report. The referee, Hon. Stanley Woodward, found the facts to be as follows: The People’s Water Company is a corporation which was organized July 15, 1889, and began to supply water to the city of Pittston on May 5, 1890, for the use of the fire plugs, and so continued to do from that date until April 1, 1896, upon which latter date,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There is no merit in this appeal, and none of the assignments can he sustained. The city of Pittston continued to use the water of the water company after notice to it by appellee, through bills repeatedly rendered, that the same would no longer be gratuitously furnished. The company had reserved the right to revoke its offer of free water whenever it should see proper to do so, and, having exercised that right, the city was thereafter bound to pay for whatever water was so used: U. S. Water Works Co. v. DuBois Boro., 176 Pa. 439; Borough of Carlisle v. Carlisle Gas & Water Co., 3…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States Water Works Co. ex rel. Du Bois City Water Works Co. v. Borough of Du BoisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- People's Water Co. v. PittstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913