Borough of Carlisle v. Carlisle Gas & Water Co.

4 A. 179, 2 Sadler 459, 18 Week. No. 59, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 700
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 17, 1886·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Under the facts found, this judgment is correct. The fire plugs were not put in under any contract which precluded the company from imposing reasonable charges for the use of the water. The fact that the borough was permitted' to use it gratuitously for several years did not make such permission ir revocable. The right to change the rates was expressly reserved by rule 13 of the company. The borough had knowledge of that right. It is a large stockholder in the company and is entitled to appoint one third of the managers thereof. This right it exercises annually. It was duly notified of the changes and of the annual rates imposed on it. The rate is not unreasonable. The borough has not abandoned the fire plugs, nor has it discontinued the use of the water by the fire companies whenever necessary. We concur in the conclusion of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Borough of Carlisle v. Carlisle Gas & Water Co., 4 A. 179, 2 Sadler 459, 18 Week. No. 59, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 700 (Pa. 1886).

4 A. 179 (Borough of Carlisle v. Carlisle Gas & Water Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lambert Bros. v. McCoy Co.
12 Teiss. 115 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1914)
Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.
157 F. 570 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas, 1908)
Silvernagle & Co. v. Fluker
21 La. Ann. 188 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1869)
Gallot v. McCluskey
18 La. Ann. 259 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1866)