Vanderbilt v. Hackensack Water Co.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
| Citation | 166 A. 298 |
| Parties | VANDERBILT et al. v. HACKENSACK WATER CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Arthur T. Vanderbilt and another, trustees in liquidation, against the Hackensack Water Company. From a decree in favor of complainants (110 N. J. Eq. 636, 160 A. 825), defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Samuel William Zerman, of Weehawken (Josiah Stryker, of Newark, of counsel), for appellant.
Jerome C. Eisenberg, of Newark, for respondents.
Complainants are the holders of a first mortgage covering an apartment house situate in West New York. There was a default, and complainants, exercising a right conferred by the contract, elected that the principal sum should become immediately due and payable, and entered into possession of the mortgaged premises. Entry was made on November 27, 1931. The mortgage contained an assignment of the rents to the mortgagee, in the event of a default, and authorized in that case the taking of possession and the collection of rents. A bill to foreclose was filed on December 7, 1931.
The defendant is a private water company, and is the sole source of water supply for the town of West New York. At the time of complainants' entry, there were arrearages for water supplied by the water company to the owner, and the water company advised complainants that it would terminate the water supply unless the amount in arrears was paid. Thereupon a bill for an injunction was filed. Defendant answered that complainants were not new owners, and did not stand in the position of new owners, but were mere assignees whose rights were not superior to those of the assignor, and that it was its right and privilege to withhold the water service until the indebtedness was paid. It made specific reference to a rule of the Public Utility Commission that expressly authorizes this course. Issue was joined, and a final decree was entered granting the prayer of the bill. Defendant appeals from that decree.
Appellant concedes that it does not have a lien upon the lands for the unpaid water charges. It is well settled that a water company, though charged with the public duty of furnishing water to all the inhabitants without discrimination, may adopt reasonable rules for the conduct of its business and the operation of its plant, and such rules, so far as they affect its patrons, are binding on them, and may be enforced, even to the extent of denying water to those who refuse to comply with them. Such power is not dependent upon any express legislative authority; it is incident to a corporation of that nature. This right of reasonable regulation is uniformly held to include the right to shut off the water supply of delinquents, and also the right to require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrell v. Ward Ward
...denied New York Water Service Corp. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 289 U.S. 741, 53 S.Ct. 659, 77 L.Ed. 1488; Vanderbilt v. Hackensack Water Co., 113 N.J.Eq. 166, 166 A. 298; Covington v. Ratterman, 128 Ky. 336, 108 S.W. 297, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 923; Chicago v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,......
-
Steele v. Clinton Elec. Light & Power Co.
... ... general rule, a public utility company engaged in supplying ... service such as water, gas, or electricity to the public may ... adopt and enforce, as a reasonable regulation for the ... 923; ... Schultz v. Lakeport (Cal.App.) 44 P.2d 683, 685; ... Vanderbilt v. Hackensack Water Co., 113 N.J.Eq. 166, ... 168, 166 A. 298; Schoening v. Paducah Water Co., 230 ... ...
-
McMenamin v. Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority
...beneficial use of property by requiring a subsequent owner to perform obligations of a former owner. See also Vanderbilt v. Hackensack Water Co., 113 N.J.Eq. 166, 166 A. 298 (1933). In Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. City of New Brunswick, supra, the court held that status of the municipality wi......
-
Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. City of New Brunswick
...water supply for charges which accrued prior to the date that complainant acquired title to the realty. In Vanderbilt v. Hackensack Water Co., Err. & App, 113 N.J.Eq. 166, 166 A. 298, it was held that reasonable rules for the conduct of the business and the operation of the plant of a water......