Munson Dye Works v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City

• Decision Date: 14 June 1934
• Citation: 173 A. 92
• Parties: MUNSON DYE WORKS v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

173 A. 92

MUNSON DYE WORKS

v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

June 14, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

Pending the settlement of a dispute in good faith as to the amount of the water bill, equity will restrain a refusal to furnish water.

Suit by the Munson Dye Works, a corporation, against the Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City and another.

Decision in accordance with opinion.

Emanuel Shavick and Paul Ritfenborg, both of Paterson, for complainant.

James A. Hamill, of Jersey City (Charles A. Rooney, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendants.

LEWIS, Vice Chancellor.

Complainant is a corporation in the dyeing industry, and purchased machinery from the receiver of Turner & Co. which had been engaged in the same business on the premises in question. Turner & Co., at the time it went into the hands of a receiver, owed large sums for water to the city of Jersey City, and the city had turned off the water supply in the factory. The property was subject to a mortgage to the Trust Company of New Jersey, which took over the premises and leased them to complainant, Complainant asked the city to turn on the water for its use, and the city refused, unless the arrearages on water bills of Turner & Co. were paid. Complainant thereupon brought the present proceeding to compel furnishing of water to it.

Under the statutes applicable to the water supply of the city, water rents are liens on the property charged therewith, and the city is given the right to shut off the water until payment is made. The city contends that this disposes of the question.

However, this right cannot be exercised arbitrarily or under conditions which are inequitable. McDowell v. Avon-by-the-Sea Land & Imp. Company, 71 N. J. Eq. 109, 63 A. 13; Johnson v. Borough of Belmar, 58 N. J. Eq. 354, 44 A. 166; Dayton v. Quigley, 29 N. J. Eq. 77; Long Branch Commission v. Tintern Manor Water Company, 70 N. J. Eq. 71, 62 A. 474.

It appears from the affidavits submitted that the complainant cannot operate the factory without water. It is not in any way responsible for tbe debt for water previously supplied to Turner & Co. The machinery used by it would be greatly decreased in value by removing it, and a considerable proportion of its value would be destroyed by such removal since some of it is a part of the building. The complainant assures the court that it will promptly pay for any water used by it, and offers to give security for the payment of any bi...