Mayor of Boonton v. Boonton Water Co.

61 A. 390, 69 N.J. Eq. 23, 1904 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 3
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedDecember 16, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 A. 390 (Mayor of Boonton v. Boonton Water Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mayor of Boonton v. Boonton Water Co., 61 A. 390, 69 N.J. Eq. 23, 1904 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 3 (N.J. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinion

Pitxey, Y. C.

This is a bill by the mayor and common council of the town of Boonton against the Boonton Water Company and the United Water Supply Company, its successor in title, asking for relief based on the terms of a written contract entered 'into between the complainant and the Boonton AYater Company oU the 14th of Januarjq 1893.

The bill is, in effect, a bill for the specific performance of that contract.

It was and is what is called and known as a continuing contract, in which the water company agreed, for a term of years, to perform a certain duty, and the city agreed to pay a certain compensation therefor.

It is not the sort of a contract which can be decreed to be specifically performed in the sense in which that word is generally used, but it is quite clear, I think, and it has not been disputed by counsel, that the court may exercise a jurisdiction by way of applying and enforcing a preventive remedy to deter the defendant from either openly breaking it or from disabling itself from performing it.

There is no dispute as to the contract being in force. It is not suggested that it has either lapsed or been released.

The bill is not intended, of course, to remedy any actual damage that has occurred to the city or any of its inhabitants by reason of the alleged breach of the contract, but it is a bill to prevent possible or probable future injury.

The complainant, as a party to this contract, occupies the position of a trustee for the inhabitants at large of the town of Boonton, and it is its plain duty to protect the rights of the inhabitants of Boonton, the public, the community, in so far as they have rights under that contract.

Before looking at the terms of the contract, I will state the circumstances out of which it arose.

[25]*25The town of Boonton is situate on the Rockaway river, on rather a steep side hill, and is one that it is difficult to supply with water by gravity. Mr. Yan Duyne, an enterprising gentleman—civil engineer, by profession—conceived the idea of supplying it, and for that purpose acquired control of a brook called Stony brook, coming through a valley called Brook valley, about four miles north of Boonton. (Also of the ground and bed of the brook.) He then applied to the municipal authorities to enter into a contract authorizing a corporation preliminary to doing any work toward executing any plan.

This he was obliged to do.

In the first place, he could accomplish nothing without a corporation, for the reason that a private individual could not become the owner of the rights necessary to acquire and hold in order to supply a town with water.

' In the next place the act of the legislature, under which an incorporation must be had, requires that the certificate of incorporation shall be accompanied with the consent of the municipality which the proposed corporation intends to supply with water, and the supreme court has held that without such consent the certificate of incorporation has no vitalizing effect and no corporation ensues.

In the third place, another section of the act provides that no pipe shall be laid by such corporation in any of the streets of the municipality without the consent of the municipal authorities.

Moreover, one source of income for one of these water companies is the annual payment to be made by the municipal authorities in behalf of the inhabitants for the supply of water for the extinguishment of fires and for street sprinkling and the like; and any incorporated company that undertakes to supply a town with water is usually careful at the very start to secure by contract an annual payment for' what is called fire hydrant service.

So Mr. Yan Duyne applied to the corporate authorities of Boonton to make a bargain to supply the town with water by a corporation then presently to be formed, and the result was the contract in question, dated as we have seen the 14th day of Jan-[26]*26nary, 1893, between Van Duyne of the first part, the Boonton Water Company, then about to be organized, of the second part, and the mayor and common council of the town, of Boonton of the third part.

Its preamble recites that the town desires to procure for the present and future needs of the town a supply of “pure and wholesome water for domestic purposes, the extinguishment of fires and other lawful uses,” and that Van Duyne has offered to supply a certain quantity of water of that character, and to construct or have constructed such works as may be necessary to deliver the water thus to be furnished, &c.

Then the covenants are that the water company shall pro- ■ cure and furnish the town of Boonton during the period of ten years and during the continuance of the contract “a full, ample and sufficient supply of water, namely, five hundred thousand gallons per day, and to be increased to one million gallons per day if required, for the extinguishment of fires and other public and domestic uses and purposes of the inhabitants of the town of Boonton, to be derived from a reservoir, whose1 out-take shall be at an elevation of six hundred and twenty-five feet, and the water level, when filled, shall be at an elevation of six hundred and thirty-five feet” above tidewater.

“Such supply of water to be delivered by the party of the second part to be carried and delivered by means of cast iron and wrought iron wafer mains and pipes of proper strength and calibre and laid in the streets and highways” as designated by lines on a map.

By a further section it is provided “the said water shall be furnished for the extinguishing of fires and the sprinkling of streets through at least fifty-five fire hydrants, which are to be placed wherever designated by the mayor,” &c. Then follows a statement of the amount of rent to be paid for each hydrant.

Further on it is provided that the water company “shall not furnish water to parties outside the corporation limits of the said town of Boonton as now constituted or as may be hereafter constituted;” and it was further provided that the water company should not sell any of its supply to any other water company, works or system.

[27]*27The contract being entered into and the necessary. assent of the corporation being given in order to give vitality to the water company when its certificate of organization was filed, Mr. Yan Duyne was ready to proceed, which he did by first locating his dam in Brook .valley, and fixing its top at six hundred and thirty-seven and one-half feet above mean tide, two feet and one-half above the contract head, and then ran a level around, to the town, and ascertained the comparative height of each street crossing in the town, and marked the height on a map of the town made for that purpose, and also the hydrostatic pressure at that point in pounds to the square inch, and furnished the corporate authorities with a copy of this map and asked them to locate the fifty-five hydrants which they had contracted for, so that he could add to his specifications for piping the town, the proper special pieces called T pieces necessary for the hydrant connections.

He also laid down on this map the mains of various sizes to be laid throughout the town. So that the municipal authorities were fully advised of what the hydrostatic pressure would be at each point, and what would be the size of the mains laid through the streets, from which the lxydrants would be supplied with water.

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

Related

State of New Jersey v. East Shores, Inc.
397 A.2d 368 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)
County of Bergen v. Port of New York Authority
160 A.2d 811 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1960)
Washington County Water Co. v. Mayor of Hagerstown
82 A. 826 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A. 390, 69 N.J. Eq. 23, 1904 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-boonton-v-boonton-water-co-njch-1904.