Skip to main content
· 1/7/1918

Croyle v. Johnstown Water Co.

Citations

  • 259 Pa. 484
  • 103 A. 303
  • 1918 Pa. LEXIS 437

Syllabus

<p>Water companies — Eminent domain — Territorial rights — Special charier — Power to furnish within city limits — Incidental furnishing to suburban districts — Effect of Constitution of 1878 — Acceptance of Act of April B9, 1871, P- L. 78 — Ultra vires acts — Right of private parties — Remedy by Commonwealth — Act of June 19, 1871, P. L. 1860 — ;Bill in equity — Injunction—Dismissal.</p> <p>1. Where the taking of water by a water company is mainly for the purpose of supplying citizens within the proper territorial limits of tbe company, the furnishing of a small supply to persons outside of the limits is a mere incident of the main purpose and the taking will not be enjoined.</p> <p>2. A water company has the right to condemn as much water as is reasonably necessary, not only for present purposes, but for future needs.</p> <p>3. A water company incorporated by a special act for the purpose of supplying water to five boroughs named and the vicinity thereof, did not lose its charter rights, at the adoption of the Constitution of 1873, or by its acceptance of the Corporation Act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, and where the boroughs were subsequently consolidated into a city, the corporation did not exceed its charter rights by supplying water in the vicinity of such city, where it did</p> <p>■ so merely as an incident to the business of supplying water to the city.</p> <p>4. Where the true purpose of condemnation of water by a water company is to furnish a territory beyond the original charter limits, such question can be inquired into only by the Commonwealth upon an appropriate proceeding, but not by a bill in equity under the Act of June 19, 1871, P. L. 1360, at the instance of a private person; and a bill in equity alleging such purpose and seeking to enjoin such taking was properly dismissed.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — Equity—Final decree — Quashing appeal.</p> <p>5. Where on bill in equity no final decree is entered after overruling exceptions, a motion to q

Judges: Mestrezat, Moscuzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.