Rockland Water Co. v. Adams

• Decision Date: 12 May 1892
• Citation: 84 Me. 472,24 A. 840
• Parties: ROCKLAND WATER CO. v. ADAMS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 840

84 Me. 472

ROCKLAND WATER CO.

v. ADAMS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

May 12, 1892.

(Official.)

Assumpsit by the Rockland Water Company against James Adams to recover for water furnished defendant. On agreed statement. Judgment for plaintiff.

J. O. Robinson and J. F. Libby, for plaintiff.

C. E. & A. Littlefield, for defendant.

LIBBEY, J. This is assumpsit to recover for the alleged use of water furnished by the plaintiff corporation to the defendant in the city of Rockland from July 1, 1885, to July 1, 1886. It comes before this court upon an agreed statement of facts.

The defendant in fact took and used the water from the 1st day of July, 1885, to the 4th day of November, 1885, when he notified the plaintiff corporation that he had ceased taking, and should use it no more. The plaintiff claims to recover for the whole year, on the ground that under its charter it had the power to establish regulations "for the use of said water, and establish, subject to the control the legislature, the prices and rents to be paid therefor." The defendant, had taken the water from the plaintiff for several years prior to 1885, for which he had paid at or near the beginning of each year, taking a receipted bill therefor, containing, printed upon the back thereof, the regulations which it had established, by virtue of which it claims to recover for the full year in this case.

The regulations relied upon are Nos. 6 and 7. They read as follows: "Sec. 6. One year's rent will be required in all cases." "Sec. 7. All water rates shall be payable at the office of the company one year in advance, on the 1st day of July in each year; and if not paid within ten days after the same are due, the water shall be shut off without further notice, and not let on again except on the payment of two dollars."

The case does not show that there was any demand made by the plaintiff for the payment of the rent prior to the commencement of the suit. The contention between the parties is whether, in the absence of an express contract to pay for the whole year, the defendant can be held liable to pay for the whole year, when he in fact used the water for four months and four days only.

We think the result must depend upon the question whether the regulation adopted by the company, that one year's rent will be required in all cases, and shall be payable at the office of the company one year in advance, on the 1st day of July in each year, is a reasonable regulation by the company, which should bind the taker of the water to pay for a whole year if he wants to use it and does use it for a third only of the year, as in this case. If this is a reasonable regulation, and was known by the defendant, it would bind him to pay in accordance with its terms. If it is not a reasonable regulation, then the defendant could not be bound by it, but to...