Borough of Washington v. Washington Water Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On application for preliminary injunction. Heard on bill and affidavits and answer and affidavits.
1Opinion of the Court
Emery, Y. 0.
Defendant has for over twenty years furnished a water-supply to complainant for fire hydrants and other public purposes under tendear contracts. Under the first contract the annual sum paid was $1,000 a jrear, and under the second (expiring July 1st, 1903), $800 a year. On the expiration of this contract, and during the last two years, the parties had negotiations for the continuance of the supply for another term of years, but *255have failed to agree on the sum to be paid. In the meantime the service has been continued as heretofore, but without any payment, and on August 17th,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Foltz, Van Camp Hdw., Etc. v. City of Indpls.Indiana Supreme Court · 1955
- Bourke v. Olcott Water Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Washington Water & Electric Co. v. Pope Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- City of Atlanta v. McJenkinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Spaulding Manufacturing Co. v. City of GrinnellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.