Carter v. Suburban Water Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1917
• Docket Number: 56.
• Citation: Carter v. Suburban Water Co., 131 Md. 91, 101 A. 771 (Md. 1917)
• Parties: CARTER v. SUBURBAN WATER CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

101 A. 771

131 Md. 91

CARTER v. SUBURBAN WATER CO.

No. 56.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 28, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; H. Arthur Stump, Judge.

Bill by John F. Carter against the Suburban Water Company.From an order dismissing plaintiff's bill and dissolving the injunction issued, he appeals.Reversed, with costs, and cause remanded.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, PATTISON, URNERSTOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Robert Biggs, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Daniel R. Randall, of Baltimore (R. E. Lee Marshall, of Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.

BURKE J.

John F Carter, the appellant, is the owner of 71 dwelling houses, which are located in West Arlington, Baltimore county, Md., on certain avenues and roads mentioned in the bill filed in this case.The appellee is a public service corporation, having its principal office in Baltimore city, and is engaged in the business of furnishing water to the appellant and many other property owners in and about West Arlington.The 71 houses of the appellant are connected with the water mains of the appellee, and secure their supply of water for drinking and household purposes from them, and have no other source of supply from which water for drinking and household purposes may be secured.During the quarter ending October 30, 1916, the defendant repeatedly failed to supply said houses with a suitable quantity of water, and the appellant was subjected to damage and loss as the result of the irregular supply of water furnished by the appellee to said houses.On the 1st day of October, 1916, the appellee furnished the appellanta bill, amounting to $291.42, for water furnished said houses.The appellant disputed the bill and claimed the legal right to deduct therefrom the losses sustained by him as the result of the failure of the appellee to furnish an adequate supply of water for drinking and household purposes-

"but expressed his willingness to adjust the said accounts with the defendant and to pay it such sum of money as would reasonably and fairly represent the proper charges for the services rendered by the defendant; that the said defendant, however, positively refused even to consider the claim of your orator, and also notified your orator that unless the said bills as rendered are paid on or before 10 o'clock on Tuesday the 10th day of October, 1916, it would cut off the supply from all the said houses, and leave them and the tenants therein without any supply of water for any purpose whatever."

The appellee is insolvent.

The bill in this case was filed on October 9, 1916, and set out substantially the facts above stated, and prayed for an injunction against the appellee, its officers, agents, and servants, restraining them from cutting off the supply of water from the houses or any of them, and for other and further relief.An injunction was issued on October 9, 1916, as prayed; the appellant first having filed an approved bond in the penalty of $2,000 as required by the order of court.On December 2, 1916, the defendant demurred to the bill upon the ground that the plaintiff"has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law."On the 6th day of February, 1917, the court passed an order dismissing the bill and dissolving the injunction, and from that order this appeal was taken.The appellant filed an approved appeal bond which operated to suspend the effect of the order.

The single question presented by the appeal is this: Upon the facts stated in the bill, was the plaintiff entitled to the injunction prayed for?It is to be observed that this is not a simple, and perhaps a common case, where a water company shuts off or threatens to shut off the supply of water from a consumer for nonpayment of the amount due for water supplied.

It is now well settled that a water company may adopt, as a reasonable regulation for the conduct of its business, a rule providing that the water supplied to a customer may be shut off for nonpayment therefor.City of Mansfield v Humphreys Mfg. Co.,82 Ohio St. 216, 92 N.E. 233, 31L. R. A. (N. S.) 301,19 Ann. Cas. 842;Shiras v. Ewing,48 Kan. 170, 29 P. 320;McDaniel v. Springfield Waterworks Co.,48 Mo.App. 273;Turner v. Revere Water Co.,171 Mass. 329, 50 N.E. 634, 40 L. R. A. 657, 68 Am. St. Rep. 432.But it is a case of dispute as to the amount due, where the appellant had expressed himself ready and willing to adjust and pay the amount for which he is liable, and where the company declines to accept anything less than the amounts of the bills rendered, and threatens to shut off the water on a certain day unless the bills are paid.The courts appear to be quite uniform in holding that a water company cannot arbitrarily shut off the...