Plainfield-Union Water Co. v. Inhabitants of City of Plainfield

• Decision Date: 18 June 1913
• Citation: 87 A. 448,84 N.J.L. 634
• Parties: PLAINFIELD-UNION WATER CO. v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF PLAINFIELD.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

87 A. 448

84 N.J.L. 634

PLAINFIELD-UNION WATER CO.

v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF PLAINFIELD.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 18, 1913.

Error to Supreme Court.

Certiorari by the Plainfield-Union Water Company against the Inhabitants of the City of Plainfield to review an order appointing commissioners to condemn the property and franchises of the complainant Judgment for the complainant, and respondents bring error. Affirmed.

See, also, 85 Atl. 321.

William M. Stillman, of Plalnfield, and Albert C. Wall, of Jersey City, for plaintiff in error.

Frank Bergen, of Newark, and Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for defendant in error.

GUMMERE, C. J. This is a certiorari proceeding. The writ brings up for review an order made by a justice of the Supreme Count appointing commissioners to condemn a part of the property and franchises of the Plainfield-Union Water Company, on the petition of the inhabitants of the city of Plainfield. The water company is a corporation formed by the consolidation of the Plainfield Water Supply Company and the Union Water Company under and pursuant to legislative authority conferred for that purpose by sections 104 et seq. of the General Corporation Act (Comp. Stat. p. 1659). The Plainfield Water Supply Company was created in 1859 by special charter, the title of which is "An act to supply the town of Plainfield, Union county, and towns adjoining with water for public and private use." The Union Water Company was created in 1870 by a special charter entitled "An act to incorporate the Union Water Company." The property and franchises sought to be acquired by the city of Plainfield through the present condemnation proceedings are a part, not all, of what was turned over to the consolidated company by the Plainfield Water Supply Company at the time of the merger. The city rests its claim of right to condemn that part of the property and franchises of the original Plainfield Water Supply Company which it now seeks to acquire upon the act of 1876 (Comp. Stat. p. 823), entitled "An act to enable cities to supply the inhabitants thereof with pure and wholesome water." At the time of the institution of these proceedings, the Plainfield-Union Water Company was under contract obligation, not only with Plainfield, but with various other municipal bodies in the county of Union to furnish the public authorities and the inhabitants with a water supply. Some of these contracts were made by the Plainfield Water Supply Company, and some by the Union Water Company, prior to the consolidation, and others by the present corporation after that event.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion containing a full discussion of the law and the facts, reached the conclusion: (1) That these several municipal contracts were each of them entered into by the respective parties by legislative authority; that they not only gave the several municipalities a right to the supply of water provided therein and thereby, but created a public duty on the part of the several water companies making them to supply the consumers in the several municipalities; and that the performance of this duty, by the consolidation, now rests upon the Plainfield-Union Water Company. (2) That, although the Legislature might authorize one public agency to condemn property already devoted to a public use by another public agency, the intention to grant such authority must be manifested in express terms or by necessary implication; and that the act of 1876, which enabled cities to supply the inhabitants thereof with pure and wholesome water, discloses no intention on the part of the Legislature to permit one of several municipalities, which are being supplied with water by a private corporation under legislative authority, to acquire by condemnation, either in whole or in part, the water supply plant and franchises of such corporation.

We fully concur in the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, and also in the reasoning of its opinion delivered in the case, except in the following respect: In considering the question whether the original companies, and afterward the consolidated company, had legislative authority to make the several municipal contracts to which reference has already been made, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to determine whether the charter of the Plainfield Water Supply Company, and that of the Union Water Company, conferred such authority, for the reason that, as it considered, the necessary authority for that purpose was conferred by the provisions of the act of 1888, entitled "An act to authorize any of the municipal corporations of this state to contract for a supply, or a further or other supply, of water therefor" (Comp. Stat. p. 3647), the act relating to boroughs (Comp. Stat. p. 268) and the act relating to townships (Comp. Stat. p....