Turners Falls Fire Dist. v. Millers Falls Water Supply Dist.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1905 |
| Citation | 189 Mass. 263,75 N.E. 630 |
| Parties | TURNERS FALLS FIRE DIST. v. MILLERS FALLS WATER SUPPLY DIST. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Franklin County.
Bill by the Turners Falls Fire District against the Millers Falls Water Supply District. A demurrer was sustained to the bill, which was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and demurrer overruled.
Fredk. L. Greene and Wm. A. Davenport, for appellant.
Dana Malone and Jas. J. Leary, for appellee.
The plaintiff is a municipal corporation, organized under St. 1886, p. 213, c. 266, and the defendant is a similar corporation, organized under St. 1896, p. 101, c. 150. Acting under the authority of section 3 (page 103) of the last-mentioned statute, the plaintiff made a contract in writing with the defendant to supply it with water for use throughout the district, to be paid for at a certain price per 1,000 gallons. When this contract was made the territory of the defendant was all within the town of Montague, and the contract calls for a supply of water only for use within the limits of the district. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any legal right to supply water to be used outside of the town of Montague. Smith v. Stoughton, 185 Mass. 329, 70 N. E. 195. Under St. 1902, p. 414, c. 500, the defendant was authorized to extend its limits so as to include certain designated territory in the town of Erving. The limit of the defendant's district having been so extended, the defendant extended its water pipes into the town of Erving, and has since been using water furnishedby the plaintiff to supply inhabitants of that town. The bill is brought to enjoin the defendant from using the water to supply that part of the district which was added under St. 1902, p. 414, c. 500. From a decree sustaining the defendant's demurrer, and dismissing the bill, the plaintiff appeals.
No one would contend that the contract, when executed, gave the defendant any right to water, except for use in the district as it then was. The territory for which the water was to be supplied was fixed definitely by the contract, and it includes no part of the town of Erving. The defendant's contention is that, when its territory was enlarged, the contract was also enlarged, so that the plaintiff is obliged to furnish water for use in another place. There is nothing in the contract itself on which such a contention can be founded, for its language does not indicate that the enlargement of the district to include a part of another town was then thought of. The question is, therefore, whether the statute changed the contract, so as to put an additional burden upon the plaintiff. This question may be divided into two parts: First, whether it was within the constitutional authority of the Legislature so to change the contract; and, secondly, whether the statute purports to change it.
It is in the power of the Legislature to change the boundaries of counties, towns, and cities, and, incidentally to the exercise of this power, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial