Kittery Water Dist. v. Agamenticus Water Co.
| Decision Date | 03 August 1907 |
| Citation | 67 A. 631,103 Me. 25 |
| Parties | KITTERY WATER DIST. v. AGAMENTICUS WATER CO. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, in Equity.
Petition by the Kittery Water District for the appointment of appraisers under Sp. Daws 1907, pp. 741-747, c. 424, incorporating that water district, and authorizing it to acquire by purchase or exercise of the right of eminent domain the entire plant, etc., of the Agamenticus Water Company. Appraisers appointed, and on agreement of the parties cause reported to the law court "to stand for further hearing in the court below or to be dismissed as the law court may determine." Petition sustained, and "cause to stand for further hearing in the court below."
Petition for the appointment of appraisers under the provisions of chapter 424, Sp. Laws 1907, incorporating the plaintiff water district, and authorizing it to acquire by purchase, or by the exercise of the right of eminent domain the entire plant, property and franchises, rights, and privileges of the defendant company. Petition dated and filed June 1, 1907. Answer and pleadings filed June 18, 1907. Heard June 18 and June 28, 1907, and decree made appointing three appraisers. The parties consenting thereto, the cause was then "reported to the law court for the Western District now in session, the cause to stand for further hearing in the court below or to be dismissed as the law court may determine."
The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
Argued before EMERY, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, PEABODY, SPEAR, and KING, JJ.
Aaron B. Cole and Heath & Andrews, for plaintiff. George C. Wing, George C. Wing, Jr., and Cleaves, Waterhouse & Emery, for defendant.
By chapter 424 of the Special Daws of 1907 (pages 741-747) a part of the town of Kittery was incorporated by the name of the "Kittery Water District," and was authorized to acquire by purchase, or by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, the "entire plant, property and franchises, rights and privileges" of the Agamenticus Water Company. That act was to take effect "when accepted by a majority vote of the legal voters within said water district voting at a meeting" specially called for the purpose on or before the 1st day of May, 1907. By section 7 of the act it is provided that, if the trustees of the water district fail to agree with the water company upon the terms of purchase "on or before June 1, 1907," the water district might through its trustees on or before June 1, 1907, petition to any justice of this court for the appointment of appraisers to fix the valuation of the water company's plant and property.
The case before the court is a petition by the water district for the appointment of appraisers, filed on June 1, 1907, addressed to Justice Spear, who, after notice to interested parties, heard the case on June 18, 1907, and appointed three appraisers. The respondents in their answer to this petition denied that the act had been accepted at a legal meeting of the voters of the district, and claimed that the special meeting of the voters of the district held on April 8, 1907, at which the act was accepted, was not legally called or conducted, and that the trustees elected at that meeting were not legally elected. The answer also sets out that the trustees of the water district on May 2, 1907, filed a petition for appraisers addressed to Justice Peabody, of substantially the same character as the present petition, on which a hearing was ordered for May 21, 1907, before Justice Savage, to which petition the water company filed answer and demurrer. At the hearing before Justice Savage he held that he had no jurisdiction, as the petition had been addressed to and received by Justice Peabody. The docket entry upon this petition at the May term is: This entry was made after adjournment nunc pro tunc. Respondents claim this petition is still pending, and is a bar to the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nueces County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 4 v. State ex rel. Wilson, 12675
...have been affected had compliance been strict.' See also, State ex inf. v. Parkey, 96 Or. 499, 190 P. 319; Kittery Water Dist. v. Agamenticus Water Co., 103 Me. 25, 67 A. 631. The creation of municipal and public corporations usually is conditioned upon compliance with several conditions pr......
-
Norway Water Dist. v. Norway Water Co.
...the substantial rights of all parties are protected, technical objections are entitled to but little weight. Kittery Water District v. Agamenticus Water Co., 103 Me. 25, 67 A. 631. The first objection attacks the validity of the referendum election, and if sustained, the entire charter beco......
-
Phillips Vill. Corp. v. Phillips Water Co.
...no application to this case, and the same is true of Mayo v. Village Fire Co., 96 Me. 541, 53 Atl. 62. In Kittery Water District v. Agamenticus Water Co., 103 Me. 25, 67 Atl. 631, the statute authorizing the purchase of the water plant provided that, if the parties did not agree upon the pr......
-
Rumford & Mexico Bridge Dist. v. Mexico Bridge Co.
...phrase is found in many of the charters for water districts, which were submitted to the voters for approval. In Kittery Water Dist. v. Water Co., 103 Me. 25, 67 Atl. 631, it was held that under a similar provision chapter 4 of Revised Statutes, relating to town elections, applied and contr......