Legal Opinion

Panton v. Duluth Gas & Water Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 13, 1892PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal by plaintiffs John Panton and Joseph Watson, from an ■order of the Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Hanks, J., made •July 8, 1891, granting defendant a new trial. The defendant, the Duluth Gas and Water Company, on October 24, 1890, demanded of plaintiffs $171.63, claiming that amount to he due it for water supplied to plaintiffs during ten months.

Read the full summary

Appeal by plaintiffs John Panton and Joseph Watson, from an ■order of the Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Hanks, J., made •July 8, 1891, granting defendant a new trial. The defendant, the Duluth Gas and Water Company, on October 24, 1890, demanded of plaintiffs $171.63, claiming that amount to he due it for water supplied to plaintiffs during ten months. Its servants were about to cut off the supply unless plaintiffs paid the bill. 'They paid it under written protest that it was too large by at least $85. They brought this action to recover this alleged excess and •obtained a verdict…

1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.

The defendant is a corporation owning and operating the water works by which the city of Duluth is supplied with water, and authorized by law to charge for water supplied to the inhabitants at specified rates, measured by the quantity supplied.

T.he plaintiffs occupy a building in the city for mercantile purposes, and keep in their service therein some forty or fifty employes. The only water supply for the premises is that afforded by the defendant. There are three water-closets in the building, and faucets elsewhere for drawing water, these all being supplied with water in the usual manner.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Joannin v. OgilvieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  2. Hicks v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
  3. Howe v. SpaldingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Shirk v. Lancaster CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. B & B Amusement Enterprises, Inc. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. City of Saginaw v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Knutson Hotel Corp. v. City of MoorheadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  5. Cunningham v. PottsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1925

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API