In re Malone Water-Works Co.

15 N.Y.S. 649, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 95
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 649 (In re Malone Water-Works Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Malone Water-Works Co., 15 N.Y.S. 649, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 95 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Opinion

Tappan, J.

Petitioner was incorporated under chapter 156 of the Laws of 1857, entitled “An act to incorporate the Malone Water-Works Company.” That act has-been amended by chapter 148, Laws 1868; chapter 161, Laws 1886; chapter 291, Laws 1870, as amended by chapter 129, Laws 1879; and chapter 36 of the Laws of 1890. These law's, so far as they are now in force, are referred to in the petition, and the same is to be construed with reference to their provisions. The petitioner presented a petition at the circuit and special'term of this court, held in Franklin county in March, 1890, to which the above-named Ladd & Smallman, by their counsel, made objections, which objections were sustained, and the petition was held insufficient. It wasthen decided that section 11 of the said act of 1857 requires the water-works company to make a verified petition, serve a copy thereof upon the owners of the land or water sought to. be taken, with a notice of the time and place of an application to the court for the appointment of commissioners, and that such petition and service of notice and of a copy is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the court in the premises; that, as the act in question provides for taking of private property for public use, it must appear to the court to which application is made for the appointment of commissioners that the case is one provided for by the law, and that .every substan n! requirement of the law that can be of any substantial benefit to the owners whose property is sought to be taken has been complied with. It was then further decided that the petition should state definitely the quantity of water diverted and sought to be diverted in future; that such statement is necessary for the protection of the petitioners, that the record may show at the end of the proceeding the extent of the right acquired, and the right to enforce the same, and to enable the owner to show at any given time' whether more water has been diverted by the petitioner than it has acquired the right to by such proceeding. This doctrinéis sustained by In re Water Commissioners of Amsterdam, 96 N. Y. 351, 361; Railroad Co. v. Dominick, 8 N. Y. Supp. 151. It was also then decided that the water company is not entitled to have commissioners appointed unless it is not able to agree with the owners of the land or water sought to be taken as to its value, and that facts should be stated, showing inability to agree, to make a good petition in that respect. A new petition has been [651]*651drawn, copies served upon the owners, with notice to them of the time and place of its presentment. Upon the presentment of such petition at the present term said owners again appear, specially, and make the following objections to the appointment of commissioners: “The petition is defective and. fails to confer jurisdiction upon the court to make an order in the premises. (1) It does not sufficiently describe the quantity of water desired to be taken. (2) It does not appear that the use to which the water is to be put, when-taken, is a public use. (3) It affirmatively appears that it is a private use. (4) It does not appear that any contract has been made or is even contemplated between Malone village and the company for the supply of water, or that any public use is to be subserved by the taking of the water. (5) The-petition does not state the facts showing inability to agree with owners upon the amount of damages for taking the water diverted or to be diverted. (6) The petition does not show that the public uses of the village of Matoneare being or will be supplied by the water taken under these proceedings. (7) The petition fails to show that the company has the power to exercise the right of taking an interest of Ladd & Smallman in the water sought to betaken. (8) Petition fails to show that the map required by chapter 156 of the Laws of 1857 to be filed has been filed. (9) The acts of the legislature-under which the company claims to exist, and under which it claims to exercise this power, are, and each of them is, unconstitutional and void. (10} If it he held that the company ever did possess the right to take an interest in water against the will of the owner, that right has been taken away by act of the legislature, particularly in the passage of chapter 36, Laws 1890. (11} The petition fails to show that Ladd & Smallman, or either of them, have consented to the taking of the water for the company. (12) The petition does not state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court to appoint commissioners of appraisement herein.” The petition sufficiently describes the quantity of water desired to be taken. It states that “the company has laid a pipe from its said premises in said lot No. 51, township 9, to its distributing reservoir located near the south limits of Malone village, which pipe has an interior diameter of ten inches, following substantially the topography of the surface of the ground and crossing hills and descending into valleys, with an extreme descent from the level of the water of the receiving basin of about 300 feet; said level being 110 feet higher than the outlet of said pipe at said reservoir, and the mean gradient in said pipe being always above the line of said pipe where it crosses the hills, and the total length of said pipe, following the changes of its course in horizontal and perpendicular planes, being 35,550 feet, the flow through said pipe being, as near as your petitioner has been able to ascertain the same, 900,000 gallons in each period of twenty-four hours, or at the rate of 84.62 cubic feet per minute; and, upon information and belief, your petitioner alleges that such is the flow through such pipes; and further, that for the purpose of supplying Malone village with pure and wholesome water for the uses and purposes in said statute provided, it is necessary to divert, take, and use all the water that will flow through said pipe, laid as aforesaid, to-wit, the. quantity aforesaid. ” The petition states the apparatus to be used in conveying the water, which will operate as a meter to measure the quantity diverted at any given time in the future, and positively show that it is not greater than the quantity which the company has acquired the right to take under this proceeding. It also states the quantity desired to he taken, which it is believed such apparatus will convey. This is all that it is practicable to state, and all that is necessary for the protection of the rights of the owners whose property and rights are sought to be acquired, and the rights of the company that may be acquired under this proceeding.

The owners object that it does not appear from the petition that the use to which the water is'to he put when taken is a public use; that it affirmatively appears therefrom that it is a private use. The act referred to which incov[652]*652porates the petitioner, in the ninth section thereof, provides “that for the purpose of supplying Malone village with pure and wholesome water the said company may purchase, take, and hold any real estate, and their agents and servants, or other persons employed by it, may enter upon the lands of any person which may be necessary for that purpose, and may take such water from any springs, ponds, or streams as may be determined by the commissioners hereinafter named,” and divert and convey the same to said village. Section 17, as amended by chapter 36, Laws 1890, in connection with section 7, tit. 4, c. 291.

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

Related

Onondaga Water Service Corp. v. Crown Mills, Inc.
132 Misc. 848 (New York Supreme Court, 1928)
Oneonta Light & Power Co. v. Schwarzenbach
164 A.D. 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Economic Power v. City of Buffalo
59 Misc. 571 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 N.Y.S. 649, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-malone-water-works-co-nysupct-1890.