Atticks v. Riverton Consolidated Water Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Atticks v. Riverton Consolidated Water Co.

81 A. 707, 232 Pa. 551, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 761

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 6, 1911

DocketAppeal, No. 319

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A. 707 (Atticks v. Riverton Consolidated Water Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atticks v. Riverton Consolidated Water Co., 81 A. 707, 232 Pa. 551, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 761 (Pa. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The bill was properly dismissed on the findings of fact. It was alleged that the defendant was exacting unreasonable, extortionate and discriminatory charges for the supply of water to the inhabitants of New Cumberland and that in raising the rates it was violating a contract made by the borough with the person to whom the right to furnish water was originally given and under which the defendant claims. There was no testimony whatever in support of the allegations of extortion and discrimination, and the court found that the evidence was insufficient to justify the conclusion that there had been a violation of the contract set up. This finding we approve.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The bill was properly dismissed on the findings of fact. It was alleged that the defendant was exacting unreasonable, extortionate and discriminatory charges for the supply of water to the inhabitants of New Cumberland and that in raising the rates it was violating a contract made by the borough with the person to whom the right to furnish water was originally given and under which the defendant claims. There was no testimony whatever in support of the allegations of extortion and discrimination, and the court found that the evidence was insufficient to justify the conclusion that there had been a violation of the contract set up. This finding we approve.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A. 707, 232 Pa. 551, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atticks-v-riverton-consolidated-water-co-pa-1911.