Inhabitants of City of Bordentown v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 06 March 1911 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF CITY OF BORDENTOWN v. ANDERSON et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by the Inhabitants of the City of Bordentown against William Anderson and others. Judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed in the Supreme Court, and defendants bring error.' Affirmed.
This is an action to recover the reasonable value of water supplied by the city of Bordentown to the defendants. It was tried before Judge Lloyd without a jury. He found that the plaintiffs supplied the defendants with water to the value of $350.22; that the defendants prior to the introduction of the city water supply had been furnished with water by a private company, the Bordentown Reservoir & Water Company, under contract for $150 per annum, which had nearly five years to run. The city had bought of the water company all of the waterworks, including all its property and pipes, easements, and personal property used in connection therewith, and all the corporate rights, powers, franchises, and privileges of the water company, with the exception of the books of account and cash in bank and the real estate with the reservoirs thereon and the pumping buildings thereon, with the boilers therein. The city had no knowledge of the contract between the water company and the defendants. Immediately after taking possession, the collector for the city presented a bill at the old rate which had been charged by the water company, but the sending of this bill was disavowed, and subsequently the city sought to charge the increased rate. Upon these facts judgment was rendered in favor of the city for $350.22.
Joseph H. Gaskill, for plaintiffs in error.
E. A. Armstrong, for defendants in error.
SWAYZE, J. (after stating the facts as above). As the trial judge said in his conclusions, there was no privity of contract between the city and the defendants. The theory of the defendants seems to be that, since the city has acquired part of the water company's plant which was essential to the carrying out of the contract by the water company, the city has thereby become obligated in the same way as the water company. A distinction must, of course, be made between the duty to supply water and the obligation of the contract to supply the water at a particular price. The former is a public duty, to be enforced by mandamus. Where the price is a matter of contract, it is to be governed by the ordinary rules relating to contracts. The only theory upon which it could be held that the burden of this contract made by the water company is now to be imposed upon the city is that it is a contract running with the land. This view is quite untenable, first, because the water company conveyed only a portion of its land, and the portion retained was quite as essential to the performance of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crownhill Homes, Inc. v. City of San Antonio
...who comply with fair and just rules and regulations applicable to all alike. The obligation is enforceable by mandamus. Bordentown v. Anderson, 81 N.J.L. 434, 79 A . 281 (E. & A. 1911); Woodruff v. (City of) East Orange, 71 N.J.Eq. 419, 64 A. 466 (Ch. 1906); Millville Improvement Co. v. Mil......
-
Petersen v. Beekmere, Inc.
...(Sup.Ct.1892) (negative duty held unenforceable in the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship); The Inhabitants of City of Bordentown v. Anderson, 81 N.J.L. 434, 79 A. 281 (E. & A. 1910), writ of error dism. 223 U.S. 714, 32 S.Ct. 521, 56 L.Ed. 626 (1911) (burden of a covenant will not r......
-
Reid Development Corp. v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp., PARSIPPANY-TROY
...with fair and just rules and regulations applicable to all alike. The obligation is enforeable by Mandamus. Bordentown v. Anderson, 81 N.J.L. 434, 79 A. 281 (E. & A. 1911); Woodruff v. East Orange, 71 N.J.Eq. 419, 64 A. 466 (Ch. 1906); Millville Improvement Co. v. Millville Water Co., cited......
-
State v. East Shores, Inc.
... ... public health, safety and welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, and as may be necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties ... The obligation is enforceable by mandamus. Bordentown v. Anderson, 81 N.J.L. 434, 79 A. 281 (E. & A.1911); Woodruff v. East ... ...