Borough of N. Wildwood v. Bd. of Pub. Util. Com'rs

• Decision Date: 03 November 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 749
• Parties: BOROUGH OF NORTH WILDWOOD et al. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COM'RS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

95 A. 749

BOROUGH OF NORTH WILDWOOD et al.

v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COM'RS et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 3, 1915.

Certiorari by the Borough of North Wildwood and another against the Board of Public Utility Commissioners and another to review an order of such board. Order affirmed.

Argued June term, 1915, before PARKER, MINTURN, and KALISCH, JJ.

Harrison H. Voorhees, of Camden, for prosecutors. Frank H. Sommer, of Newark, for defendant Board of Public Utility Com'rs. Ernest Watts, of Burlington, and Joseph PI. Gaskill, of Camden, for defendant Wildwood Waterworks Co. PARKER, J. The writ brings up an order of the board of public utility commissioners making applicable to North Wildwood a previous order relating to the neighboring city of Wildwood. Said lastmentioned order, which is an exhibit in the case, fixed the rates to be charged to private consumers for water at 30 cents per thousand gallons, and the adoption by the board of this rate in North Wildwood is challenged by the prosecutors on the sole ground that there already existed a contract between the municipality and the water company for a lower rate, and that said contract could not be abrogated or altered by any action of the board, without the consent of both the contracting parties.

The contract relied on is dated December 24, 1907, and provides also for hydrants and street sprinkling at the public expense, as well as for rates to private consumers. In 1913 a second contract was made, not referring to the first in any way, and relating to municipal water consumption alone, without reference to private consumption. The water company, apparently conceiving that the second contract wholly supplanted the first, then put up the private rate to 40 cents, and there was an appeal to the utility board, which, as has been stated, reduced the rate to 30 cents. Prosecutors are not satisfied with this result, and by this writ seek to re-establish the original contract rate of 25 cents, with a minimum charge of $10.

For the water company it is claimed that the contract of 1913 covered the subject-matter of that of 1907 and that the rule of statutory construction should be applied, that a later statute covering the whole subject matter will be deemed to repeal previous legislation on the subject. Board of Education v. Tait, 81 N. J. Eq. 161, 86 Atl. 379; Gottuso v. Baker, 80 N. J. Law, 520, 77 Atl. 1038. Assuming the applicability of this rule to contracts, it is not applicable in ...