United States Water Works Co. ex rel. Du Bois City Water Works Co. v. Borough of Du Bois

35 A. 251, 176 Pa. 439, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1095
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 15, 1896
DocketAppeal, No. 129
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 A. 251 (United States Water Works Co. ex rel. Du Bois City Water Works Co. v. Borough of Du Bois) 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
United States Water Works Co. ex rel. Du Bois City Water Works Co. v. Borough of Du Bois, 35 A. 251, 176 Pa. 439, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1095 (Pa. 1896).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

It was held in borough of Du Bois v. Du Bois Water Works Co., opinion filed herewith, supra, 430, that the circumstances would not sustain the cancellation of the contract between those parties by a court of equity, and of course they would not justify one of the parties themselves in attempting a rescission. The ordinance of the borough was beyond its authority and wholly ineffectual for that purpose.

But even if the ordinance had been effective the direction of a verdict for defendant could not be sustained. It is admitted that a considerable amount of water was supplied by the plaintiff, although it fell short of the contract quantity, and it was shown or offered to be shown that the defendant’s servants and employees had used it, notwithstanding the ordinance rescinding the contract! For such use the borough is responsible. Even if the borough was authorized to rescind it could not escape liability for continued use by its agents; it was bound not only to notify them to stop but to see that they obeyed.

This is not a case for the application of the rule as to entire contracts. Neither the thing to be furnished nor the consideration to be paid was single and indivisible. The plaintiff is entitled to go to the jury on the value of the service actually rendered, measured by the contract price for the service stipulated.

Judgment reversed and venire de novo awarded.

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

Related

Heilwood Fuel Co. v. Manor Real Estate Co.
175 A.2d 880 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston
52 A. 249 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Ephrata Water Co. v. Ephrata Borough
16 Pa. Super. 484 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Hyndman Water Co. v. Borough of Hyndman
7 Pa. Super. 191 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 A. 251, 176 Pa. 439, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-water-works-co-ex-rel-du-bois-city-water-works-co-v-pa-1896.