Legal Opinion
New York Interurban Water Co. v. City of Mt. Vernon
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 15, 1920PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Action in equity.
1Opinion of the CourtTompkins, J.
The plaintiff brings this action in equity for two purposes: First, to have it adjudged that the ordinance marked ‘ ‘ Exhibit C ’ ’ and annexed to the complaint, relating to the rates to be charged by the plaintiff and regulating the plaintiff’s service of the city of Mt. Vernon and its inhabitants, was and is illegal and void; and second, that the plaintiff’s new rates which were to have become effective September 1, 1919, are fair and reasonable.
The plaintiff is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of supplying water for hire to the city of Mt. Vernon and inhabitants thereof and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Simpson v. ShepardSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Des Moines Gas Co. v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- People Ex Rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. WillcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
3Cited by3 opinions
- Reno Power, Light & Water Co. v. Public Service CommissionDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1921
- Town of Mamaroneck v. New York Interurban Water Co.New York Supreme Court · 1925
- Silberberg v. Citizens Water Supply Co.New York Supreme Court · 1921