Collingswood Sewerage Co. v. Borough of Collingswood
| Decision Date | 18 November 1918 |
| Citation | 92 N.J.Law 509,105 A. 209 |
| Parties | COLLINGSWOOD SEWERAGE CO. v. BOROUGH OF COLLINGSWOOD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Application by the Collingswood Sewerage Company to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, for authority to charge higher rates in the Borough of Collingswood. From judgment of the Supreme Court (102 Atl. 901), setting aside an order of the Board refusing the application, the Borough appeals. Affirmed.
Wescott & Weaver, of Camden, and Marshall Van Winkle and George L. Record, both of Jersey City, for New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, and J. Fithian Tatem, of Camden, for appellee.
The Collingswood Sewerage Company was incorporated under chapter 210 of the Laws of 1898 (P. L. 484). Its right to construct a sewerage system in the borough of Collingswood was conferred by the legislative grant contained in the statute. The exercise of that right, however, was suspended by the mandate of the Legislature until it obtained from the borough its consent to the construction of such system within its municipal limits. The statute also provided that the municipal authorities should annex to their consent, which should be by a formal ordinance, the maximum prices, or rents, to be charged to property owners for use of the sewerage system.
In the present case the sewerage company obtained the consent of the municipality to the construction of its sewerage system. This consent was exhibited by an ordinance which, among other things, fixed the maximum rate for service at $4.50 for each six months. The sewerage company accepted the various provisions of the ordinance and constructed its system. After some years of operation, and in 1914, it applied to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners for authority to charge higher rates than those fixed by the borough ordinance, the ground of the application being that by reason of changed conditions that rate had ceased to be a just and reasonable one, because of its insufficiency. The utility commission refused the application upon the sole ground that the existing rate was not confiscatory. The sewerage company thereupon applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the order of denial; and upon the hearing had on the return of the writ the order was set aside (102 Atl. 901). The Borough of Collingswood now appeals from the judgment of the Supreme Court.
One of the principal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Camden v. Byrne
...24 N.J. 467, 474, 132 A.2d 794 (1957); Jersey City v. Martin, supra, 126 N.J.L. at 361, 19 A.2d 40; Collingswood Sewerage Co. v. Collingswood, 92 N.J.L. 509, 511, 105 A. 209 (E. & A. 1918); Atlantic Coast Elec. Ry. Co. v. Public Utility Bd., 92 N.J.L. 168, 173, 104 A. 218 (E. & A. 1918), ap......
-
Public Service Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
...by the intervening municipalities in this case. Collingswood Sewerage Co. v. Collingswood, 91 N.J.Law, 20, 102 A. 901, affirmed 92 N.J.Law, 509, 105 A. 209; Atlantic Line Electric Ry. Co. v. Public Utility Board, 92 N.J.Law, 168, 104 A. 218, 12 A.L.R. 737; Public Service Ry. Co. v. Board of......
-
City of Plainfield v. Public Service Elec. and Gas Co.
...at 608, 96 A. at 1015. However, in Collingswood Sewerage Co. v. Collingswood, 91 N.J.L. 20, 102 A. 901 (Sup.Ct.1918), aff'd 92 N.J.L. 509, 105 A. 209 (E. & A. 1918), this basic question was considered. The court determined that a sewerage company could petition the Board of Public Utility C......
-
Jersey City v. Martin
...and Council of City of Hoboken v. Martin, supra; Collingswood Sewerage Co. v. Collingswood, 91 N.J.L. 20, 102 A. 901, affirmed 92 N.J.L. 509, 105 A. 209; Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Allen 268, 93 Mass. 268; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 43 S.Ct. 534, 67 L.Ed. 937, 29 A.L.R. 1471; ......