Lucia v. Village of Montpelier
| Citation | 15 A. 321,60 Vt. 537 |
| Parties | J.H. LUCIA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTPELIER, v. THE VILLAGE OF MONTPELIER, THE BOARD OF BAILIFFS, THE BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS, AND F.L. EATON, TREASURER |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1888 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
MAY TERM, 1888 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
BILL IN CHANCERY. Heard on the pleadings and testimony, March Term, 1888, ROWELL, Chancellor. The court pro forma and without hearing decreed that the defendants be perpetually enjoined from laying the water main mentioned in the bill and that said Eaton be perpetually enjoined from hiring any money on the credit of the said village for the purpose of paying the expenses of the same.
The decree is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Chancery with a mandate to dismiss the bill with costs.
Senter & Kemp and Pitkin & Huse, for the defendants.
This is a bill in equity brought by sundry taxpayers in the village of Montpelier to arrest the expenditure of municipal funds for a proposed extension of the water supply of said village.
The facts established by the evidence, are, briefly stated, as follows: Prior to September 26, 1887, the village of Montpelier had at great expense and by virtue of its chartered authority, secured the right to take water from Berlin Pond to supply the wants of its inhabitants for domestic and public purposes. The supply thus secured largely exceeded the present wants of the village, and the excess owned by the village was running to waste. The main pipe conducting the water to the village crosses the Winooski river and is exposed to damage, if not breakage, by the breaking up of the ice and floating of floodwood in the spring of the year. The water has been used to some extent as a power in running motors in the village, from which use a considerable revenue has been earned.
The village is very compactly built, and a large fire threatens more damage to property than it would were the buildings more isolated or scattered. The water supply, however, is sufficient for ordinary fire exposure.
The voters of the village, at a legal meeting held on the 26th day of September, 1887, voted by a large majority to lay another water main from the village reservoir in Berlin to the village and authorized a loan of $ 30,000 to defray the expense. The bill in this case seeks to restrain this expenditure, the orators insisting that the additional main is not wanted for any proper municipal purpose within the chartered power of the village, but primarily to supply additional power to run machinery, and the defendants insisting that the primary purpose is to render the supply of water more secure in case of injury to the original main, and more ample in case of an extraordinary fire. The defendants furthermore insist that inasmuch as the village owns an excess of water beyond the capacity of its reservoir, it has the right to use the same for manufacturing purposes even if it subserves no proper municipal end beyond the earning of income for the village. In support of the last proposition the defendants cite the cases of State v. Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533; Canal Co. v. Water Power Co. 35 N.W. 529; and Bell v. Platteville, 36 N.W. 831.
We have no occasion to consider the soundness of this last claim of the defendants, as we are all agreed that the evidence warrants the expenditure on...
To continue reading
Request your trial