Meyer v. Somerville Water Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1912
• Citation: 82 A. 915,79 N.J.E. 613
• Parties: MEYER et al. v. SOMERVILLE WATER CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

82 A. 915

79 N.J.E. 613

MEYER et al.

v. SOMERVILLE WATER CO. et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 4, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Bill by Bernard Meyer and others against the Somerville Water Company and others. Decree for defendants, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Edward P. Johnson, Jr., for appellants.

Alvah A. Clark and Richard V. Lindabury, for respondent Somerville Water Co. John A. French, for respondent Board of Chosen Freeholders of Somerset county.

TRENCHARD, J. This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Chancery denying a preliminary injunction.

The bill of complaint alleges that the complainants are riparian owners on the Raritan river; that the defendant, the Somerville Water Company, was organized in 1881, under the act of April 21, 1876 (P. L. p. 318), for the purpose of supplying the towns of Somerville and Raritan, and the inhabitants thereof with water; that it has been engaged in the business authorized by its charter ever since its incorporation; that in 1907 it contracted with, the Piscataway Water Company, the Raritan Township Water Company, and the Elizabethtown Water Company to furnish water, not to exceed 20,000,000 gallons per day; that it has laid without lawful authority a 30-inch water main from a point near its pumping station in Raritan, through Raritan and Somerville, and has made application to the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Somerset for permission to extend the main along a county road from the Somerville line to a I point in the county of Middlesex. The bill then charges that the main is much larger than is necessary to supply Somerville and Raritan; that the company's real purpose in laying the main is to use it for the purpose of taking and diverting water from the Raritan river at a point above the lands of the complainants in order to fulfill its contract with the other water companies. The bill prays that the company be enjoined from the further laying of the 30-inch main, and from taking or diverting any waters of the Raritan river, or its tributaries, other than are necessary for the use of Somerville and Raritan; and that the board of chosen freeholders be enjoined from granting a permit to lay the main in the county road.

Both parties submitted affidavits. It is conceded that the complainants are riparian owners, that the Somerville Water Company has entered into a contract with the other companies, and has laid a 36-inch main as alleged in the bill. The affidavits on the part of the complainants state that by reason of the several matters stated in the bill the deponents believe it is the intention of the Somerville Water Company to take and divert from the Raritan river and its tributaries large quantities of water to fulfill its contract, to the great damage of the complainants. On the other hand, the reply affidavit submitted by the Somerville Water Company denies that the 36-inch main was laid without lawful authority, and that it is enormously excessive for the requirements of Somerville and Raritan, although it may be in excess of such present needs. It admits that the water main was laid with the idea of fulfilling the contract with the other water companies, and that the company does not own or possess a sufficient water supply to enable it to fulfill such contract, but it denies that the company proposes to divert or take water from the Raritan river or its tributaries from any point above the lands of the...