Legal Opinion

Follett v. Water Works Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1924Published

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

For himself and others similarly situated, petitioner asks for an order of mandamus to compel defendants to continue to furnish water to their customers at the old rates *826pending the outcome of an action brought by petitioner in equity to have determined whether or not the new rates are reasonable.

The statute imposes upon defendants the duty to supply the inhabitants of the village of Seneca Falls “ with pure and wholesome water at reasonable rates and cost.” Transp. Corp. Law, § 81. And this “ reasonable rates and cost ” clause of this section is the sole and only provision of the statute…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. People Ex Rel. Mott v. . Board of SupervisorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. City of Mount Vernon v. New York Inter Urban Water Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  4. People Ex Rel. City of New York v. Queens County Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  5. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906

3 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