Legal Opinion
Maine Water Co. v. City of Waterville
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided February 9, 1900PublishedCited by 12 opinions
On Report. This was art action of debt, to recover the sum of $924.00, which the plaintiff claimed was due to it on September 28, 1897, for water service rendered by it to the City of Waterville under its contract of January 21, 1890. Plea, general issue and brief statement: “ And for a brief statement of special matter of defense to be used under the general issue pleaded, the said defendants further say, that the alleged contract of January 21, 1890, referred to and set up…
Read the full summary
On Report. This was art action of debt, to recover the sum of $924.00, which the plaintiff claimed was due to it on September 28, 1897, for water service rendered by it to the City of Waterville under its contract of January 21, 1890. Plea, general issue and brief statement: “ And for a brief statement of special matter of defense to be used under the general issue pleaded, the said defendants further say, that the alleged contract of January 21, 1890, referred to and set up in plaintiff’s declaration, was not made for and upon the consideration therein expressed, but that the expression of…
1Opinion of the CourtWiswell, J.
On May 5, 1887, the Waterville Water Company, the predecessor of the plaintiff corporation, entered into a written contract with the inhabitants of the then town of Water-ville, by the terms of which, the Water Company contracted among other things, to construct a safe and suitable reservoir in the town with a capacity of at least two million gallons of water, the bottom of which reservoir should be at least one hundred and seventy-five feet above the level of the street at the postoffice; to force water to such reservoir from either the Messalonskee stream, or the Kennebec river, and keep…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grant v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Cartersville Improvement, Gas & Water Co. v. Mayor of CartersvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
3Cited by12 opinions
- Meyers v. FlournoySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1946
- Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Seattle & North Coast Railroad Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Short Line Railroad Association, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, American Short Line Railroad Association, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Intervenors. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brown Transport Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, Brick Association of North Carolina, American Trucking Associations, Inc., National Grain and Feed Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Intervenors. International Paper Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Intervenors. The National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Traffic League, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Eastern Industrial Traffic League, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Intervenors. Itel Corporation, Rail Division v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, East Camden & Highland Railroad Company, Funding Systems Railcar, Inc., Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Valdosta Southern Railroad Company, Apalachicola Northern Railroad Co., Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company, Marinette, Tomahawk & Western Railroad Co., Little Rock & Western Railway Corp., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Ford Motor Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Continental Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sysco Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Patrick W. Simmons v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Aluminum Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, Delaware and Hudson Railway Company and Maine Central Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Limited v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. National Railway Utilization Corporation, Pickens Railroad Co., Peninsula Terminal Co., the Mississippian Railway, Inc., Graham County Railroad, Inc., Atlantic & Western Railway Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company and Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sea-Land Service, Inc. And Sea-Land Freight Service, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., Intervenor. H.C. Spinks Clay Co., Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sandersville Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Chattahoochee Industrial Railroad, Great Southern Paper, Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., and the Old Augusta Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Lamoille Valley Railroad Co., of Morrisville, Lamoille County, Vermont v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Rubber Manufacturers Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, National Industrial Transportation League, Intervenor. Evans Products Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Port Commissioners for the City of Oakland v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1951
- Brae Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Purcell v. City of LexingtonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.