Gloucester Water Supply Co. v. City of Gloucester
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition to determine the value of the petitioner’s water plant purchased by the respondent on September 24, 1895, under St. 1895, c. 451, § 16, filed October 29, 1895. Commissioners were appointed under the provisions of the act, who reported that the value of the plant, exclusive of any allowance for the franchise and rights other than the water rights of the company, and excluding all evidence as to the past earning capacity of the company, was $600,500, and that the…
Read the full summary
Petition to determine the value of the petitioner’s water plant purchased by the respondent on September 24, 1895, under St. 1895, c. 451, § 16, filed October 29, 1895. Commissioners were appointed under the provisions of the act, who reported that the value of the plant, exclusive of any allowance for the franchise and rights other than the water rights of the company, and excluding all evidence as to the past earning capacity of the company, was $600,500, and that the petitioner should recover that amount with interest from September 24, 1895, less the sum of $3,955.40, which it was agreed…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
1. The respondent’s first contention is that in estimating" the value of the Dikes and Wallace reservoirs the water company is not entitled to include the value of any water or water rights.
These two reservoirs formed the water supply which was in use on September 24, 1895, when the petitioner’s plant was transferred to the respondent city. The water which feeds these reservoirs was obtained by digging out two swamps and damming up their outlets. No brook flowed into either swamp in its natural state, but the water collected in the reservoirs “ gathers ” there, coming from the watersheds of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Norris v. DoniphanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
- Adams v. FrothinghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Drury v. Midland RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Inhabitants of Stoughton v. BakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Bailey v. Inhabitants of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- City of Chicago v. FarwellIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
- Appleton Water Works Co. v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Kennebec Water District v. City of WatervilleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1902
- Dubinsky v. CamaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.