Borough of Milford v. Milford Water Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE PIKE COUNTY. No. 138 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below No. 3 October Term 1885, C. P. To tbe number and term of tbe court below indicated, the Milford Water Company brought suit against the borough of Milford, declaring in the common counts in assumpsit. Issue.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE PIKE COUNTY. No. 138 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below No. 3 October Term 1885, C. P. To tbe number and term of tbe court below indicated, the Milford Water Company brought suit against the borough of Milford, declaring in the common counts in assumpsit. Issue. At the trial of the case on June 7,1888, it was shown: That on April 9, 1875, the borough council enacted ordinance No. 2, which was as follows: “ It is hereby ordained and enacted, by the chief burgess and town council of the borough of Milford, That from the day and date of the approval…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Chief Justice Paxson :
The contract between the Milford Water Company, plaintiff below, and the borough of Milford, defendant, is a valid and binding contract, provided ordinance No. 2 of said borough, passed April 9, 1875, is a valid ordinance. Just here is the pinch of the plaintiff’s case.
It is not denied that when the ordinance was passed a majority of councils were also directors of the water company. They were thus contracting with themselves to supply the borough with water. The 66th section of the act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 400, provides that “ It shall not be lawful for…
2Cited by27 opinions
- Dekam v. City of StreatorIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
- City of Findlay v. PertzCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Union Trust Co. v. Preston National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- City of Bristol v. Dominion National BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1929
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.