Legal Opinion
Town of Mamaroneck v. New York Inter-Urban Water Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 3, 1922PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Young, J.:
Originally there were two applications for peremptory mandamus orders, for the same extension, one by the town of Mamaroneck, and the other by prospective private consumers, and separate answers to each application, but upon the hearing the applications were consolidated and only one peremptory mandamus order made.
The locality in question, Forest avenue, is situated in that portion of the town of Mamaroneck “ outside of a city or incorporated village,” and the New York Inter-Urban Water Company is a water works corporation authorized to supply water and operating in the town of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- North River Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Port Jervis Water Works Co. v. Village of Port JervisNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Staten Island Water Supply Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- People Ex Rel. City of New York v. Queens County Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
3Cited by4 opinions
- Town of Clifton Park v. Rivercrest Sewage Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1978
- Town of Mamaroneck v. New York Interurban Water Co.New York Supreme Court · 1925
- Village of Massena v. St. Lawrence Water Co.New York Supreme Court · 1926
- Follett v. Water Works Co.New York Supreme Court · 1924