Commonwealth v. Towanda Water Works

Citations

• 1 Monag. 500
• 15 A. 440
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 716

Syllabus

<p>In proceedings by quo warranto against a water company, incorporated under tbe Act of April 29,1874, \\ 34, paragraph 2, authorizing the incorporation of water companies for the supply of pure water, the information, filed in the common pleas of Dauphin county, in the name of the attorney general, averred that the water supplied by the defendant company was impure, unwholesome, etc., and claimed a forfeiture of the franchises. The answer denied these averments. The jury found a special verdict that the water furnished was “ wholesome, but not pure,” subject to the reserved points whether the court had jurisdiction and whether a judgment of ouster should be entered. The evidence as to the quality of the water was contradictory. The court below held that, in the absence of any application to the court of the proper county, under the Act of 1874, to require the corporation to furnish water less impure, and of any finding that the defendant wilfully or negligently failed to do its duty, and in view of the contradictory evidence, judgment should be entered for the defendant. Held that the judgment should be affirmed.</p> <p>Simonton, P. J. — The Act of June 14,1836, $ 1, as extended by the Act of April 7,1870, confers jurisdiction upon the court of common pleas of Dauphin county. And the Act of April 29,1874, giving a remedy to any citizen using the water, upon application to the court of the county where the company’s business is located, does not diminish or enlarge the remedy of the commonwealth. The Act of 1874 implies, at least, that a failure to furnish pure water is not ground of forfeiture.</p>