Watson v. Inhabitants of Needham

• Decision Date: 18 May 1894
• Citation: 161 Mass. 404,37 N.E. 204
• Parties: WATSON v. INHABITANTS OF NEEDHAM.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

161 Mass. 404

37 N.E. 204

WATSON v. INHABITANTS OF NEEDHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 18, 1894

COUNSEL

Thomas H. Wakefield, for plaintiff.

Henry E. Fales and Stephen H. Tyng, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The defendant town, acting through its water commissioners undertook to furnish the plaintiff with water, for use in a boiler, to make steam to heat his greenhouse. It is objected that this is a use for which the town had no constitutional authority to take and furnish water, and that the contract was therefore void. It is true that the right of eminent domain cannot be exercised to take property for a private use, and persons or corporations owning rights in streams or ponds cannot be deprived of their use of the water by an attempt to take it for the use of another, merely for purposes of private gain; but it has long been settled that ponds and streams may constitutionally be taken, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of cities and towns with pure water for domestic and other similar purposes. Opinion of the Justices, 150 Mass. 592, 24 N.E. 1084. It may be a matter of some difficulty to determine precisely what uses are included within the public purposes for which water lawfully may be taken. In regard to uses strictly domestic, there can be no doubt. We are of opinion that other uses are included, such as are fairly incidental to the ordinary modes of living in cities and large towns, and as involve the operation of motors requiring but a small quantity of water, which may reasonably be supplied from an aqueduct of such capacity as would be needed to meet the ordinary requirements of the inhabitants for domestic and other similar purposes. We are of opinion that the use in the present case was one for which the town might legally furnish water.

The terms of the contract were not expressed in full, but were left in part to implication. In construing the contract, we must consider the situation of the parties, and their relation to the subject with which they were dealing. The town was acting in the performance of a public duty, in supplying water for public use, and incidentally was making contracts with individuals, adapted to the circumstances of each particular case. It would not be expected to guaranty a supply of water against all contingencies, but only to guaranty proper effort to insure...