Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston

52 A. 249, 203 Pa. 223, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 691

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 4, 1902

DocketAppeal, No. 102

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A. 249 (Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston) 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

Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston, 52 A. 249, 203 Pa. 223, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 691 (Pa. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There is no merit in this appeal, and none of the assignments can he sustained. The city of Pittston continued to use the water of the water company after notice to it by appellee, through bills repeatedly rendered, that the same would no longer be gratuitously furnished. The company had reserved the right to revoke its offer of free water whenever it should see proper to do so, and, having exercised that right, the city was thereafter bound to pay for whatever water was so used: U. S. Water Works Co. v. DuBois Boro., 176 Pa. 439; Borough of Carlisle v. Carlisle Gas & Water Co., 3 Cent. Repr. 584. The learned referee has found what the water so used was worth, and what the city should pay for it. The exceptions to his report were all properly dismissed, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

There is no merit in this appeal, and none of the assignments can he sustained. The city of Pittston continued to use the water of the water company after notice to it by appellee, through bills repeatedly rendered, that the same would no longer be gratuitously furnished. The company had reserved the right to revoke its offer of free water whenever it should see proper to do so, and, having exercised that right, the city was thereafter bound to pay for whatever water was so used: U. S. Water Works Co. v. DuBois Boro., 176 Pa. 439; Borough of Carlisle v. Carlisle Gas & Water Co., 3 Cent. Repr. 584. The learned referee has found what the water so used was worth, and what the city should pay for it. The exceptions to his report were all properly dismissed, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A. 249, 203 Pa. 223, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spring-brook-water-co-v-pittston-pa-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack