Panton v. Duluth Gas & Water Co.

• Citation: 50 Minn. 175,52 N.W. 527
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Decision Date: 13 June 1892
• Parties: PANTON ET AL. v DULUTH GAS & WATER CO.

50 Minn. 175

52 N.W. 527

PANTON ET AL.vDULUTH GAS & WATER CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 13, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Order granting a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence sustained. Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, (Gil. 398,) followed.

2. A city merchant in whose store were employed 40 persons, and which was supplied with water only by the defendant's system of water works, there being three water-closets in the building, paid, under protest, an excessive charge for water, the defendant being about to shut off the supply for nonpayment. Held duress, and that an action may be maintained to recover the excess paid.

Appeal from municipal court of Duluth; HANKS, Judge.

Action by John Panton and others, partners as Panton & Watson, against the Duluth Gas & Water Company, to recover an alleged overcharge for water. Verdict for plaintiffs, and from an order granting defendant a new trial they appeal. Affirmed.

Cotton & Dibell, for appellants.

Draper, Davis & Hollister, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The defendant is a corporation owning and operating the water works by which the city of Duluth is supplied with water, and authorized by law to charge for water supplied to the inhabitants at specified rates, measured by the quantity supplied. The plaintiffs occupy a building in the city for mercantile purposes, and keep in their service therein some 40 or 50 employes. The only water supply for the premises is that afforded by the defendant. There are three water-closets in the building, and faucets elsewhere for drawing water, these all being supplied with water in the usual manner. The water thus supplied is used for the closets, for sprinkling, washing floors and windows, for drinking, and for the ordinary daily use of the persons in the building, but not for culinary purposes. The defendant made a demand on plaintiffs for payment of a specified sum for use of water during a particular period. The plaintiffs refused to pay that sum, claiming that the water meter on the premises, put in by the defendant, did not correctly measure the amount of water passing through it, and that the amount of water for which the charge was made was much in excess of the amount actually used. The defendant was about to shut off the water supply from the building because of such refusal, as it assumed the right to do, when the plaintiffs, in order to prevent the water being shut off, paid the sum charged, under protest, and now prosecute this action to recover back the amount of the alleged overcharge.

1. Upon the question of fact as to...