Van Buren Light & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of Van Buren

• Decision Date: 30 March 1917
• Citation: 100 A. 371,116 Me. 119
• Parties: VAN BUREN LIGHT & POWER CO. v. INHABITANTS OF VAN BUREN.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

100 A. 371

116 Me. 119

VAN BUREN LIGHT & POWER CO.

v. INHABITANTS OF VAN BUREN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 30, 1917.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Aroostook County, at Law.

Actions by the Van Buren Light & Power Company against the Inhabitants of Van Buren. On report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment for defendant in each case.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORNISH, BIRD, HALEY, HANSON, and MADIGAN, JJ.

Hersey & Barnes and R. W. Shaw, all of Houlton, for plaintiff. Archibalds, of Houlton, and P. C. Keegan. of Van Buren, for defendant.

HALEY, J. Two actions brought to recover on an account annexed, and quantum meruit, for electric current and electric lights furnished the inhabitants of the town of Van Buren. The first writ seeks to recover for lighting the streets and certain public buildings in Van Buren from April 1, 1915, to June 26th of the same year, and the second from November 27, 1915, to February 29, 1916. The cases are before this court upon report.

On the 19th day of July, 1911, the plaintiff claims that it entered into a contract with the inhabitants of the town of Van Buren, acting by a committee, binding the parties thereto for a period of 15 years from the date the plant began operation, to furnish the town the electric lights as specified, and that the contract provided on default on the part of said inhabitants to make payments as stipulated that the light company might, at its option, shut off the street lights until payment for all arrears to said light company was made. From October, 1911, until the 1st day of April, 1915, the defendants paid monthly for electric service at the prices stipulated in the alleged contract In June. 1915, there being due, as claimed by the plaintiff, the payments for lights from April 1st to June, and the town refusing to pay therefor, they exercised their right under the contract and stopped furnishing the lights. In 1915, certain residents of the town of Van Buren proceeded to erect, at their own expense, an electric light plant, which duplicated the electric lighting system of the plaintiff, and made arrangements to obtain their current from the same source as the plaintiff, and in the fall of 1915 the plaintiff, who during the summer shut off their service, again began on the 27th day of November to light the streets of Van Buren, and thereafterwards the second company started their plant and furnished lights for the street and public buildings by virtue of an alleged contract with the town.

It appears that from the 22d day of November to the date of the purchase of the two writs now under consideration, both the plaintiff and the associates above described. or their successors, have continued to furnish to each a set of street lights for operation in the defendant town, and that, at about the time of the annual meeting of defendant town in 1916, the town agreed to purchase the plant constructed by said associates.

Several questions as to the legality of the alleged contract arise, but it is unnecessary to decide them because there is no contract proved. The alleged contract is claimed to have been proved by the oral testimony of one of the committee who signed the contract, together with others as agents of the town; and the alleged contract describes them "as a committee duly chosen, and qualified, on behalf and as the agents of said inhabitants of said town of Van Buren, hereunto duly authorized by a vote of said inhabitants of said town, taken at a special town meeting of said inhabitants duly called and held in said town on the 19th day of July, A. D. 1911, parties of the second part"; and they signed the alleged contract "as a committee and agents of said town duly chosen, qualified and authorized, by a vote of said town as aforesaid, for and in behalf of said inhabitants of said town of Van Buren on the day and year first above written." It was no part of the defendant's case to prove that the persons signing the contract as a committee and agents of the town did not have authority to make the contract. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the authority, and it is admitted that, if the authority was possessed by them, it was by virtue of a vote of the town. The only proof...