Inhabitants of Bordentown v. Anderson
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. This is an action to recover the reasonable value of water supplied by the city of Bordentown to the defendants. It was tried before Judge Lloyd without a jury.
Read the full summary
On error to the Supreme Court. This is an action to recover the reasonable value of water supplied by the city of Bordentown to the defendants. It was tried before Judge Lloyd without a jury. He found that the plaintiffs supplied the defendants with water to the value of $350.22; that the defendants, prior to the introduction of the city water-supply, had been furnished with water by a private company, the Bordentown Beservoir and Water Company, under contract for $150 per annum, which had nearly five years to run. The city had bought of the water company all of the water works, including all…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
As the trial judge said in his conclusions, there was no privity of contract between the city and the defendants. The theory of the defendants seems to be that, since the city has acquired part of the water company’s plant, which was essential to the carrying out of the contract by the water company, the city has thereby become obligated in, the same way as the water company. A distinction must, of course, be made between the duty to supply water and the obligation of the contract to supply flic water at a particular price. The former is a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beckhard v. RudolphNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hartt v. HarttWyoming Supreme Court · 1956
- Petersen v. Beekmere, IncorporatedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
- STATE, BD. OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'RS v. East Shores, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
- First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank v. DuroeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- Wylde v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.