Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

151 N.C. 171

65 S.E 927

Water Co. v. . Trustees

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 20, 1909

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1909-10-20

Relies on Red Springs Hotel Co. v. Town of Red Springs · Ipock v. Gaskins · Bain v. City of Goldsboro

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-10-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1946

4 state decisions

1019091910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The facts are set out in the plaintiff's appeal in this case. What we have said in disposing of that appeal indicates our opinion on the defendant's appeal. The defendant appealed because his Honor, upon the agreed facts, required it to pay one-third of the amount of plaintiff's bill for water furnished the two public schools conducted in the corporate limits of the town of Henderson, based upon the proportion of the number of school children living beyond the town limits, to the total number of children within the school territory under control of defendant. We do not think this fact sufficient to relieve the plaintiff; for if the contract be so construed and the words of the stipulation so interpreted, the effect would be to make these schools in the corporate limits, in this relation to the plaintiff, public schools as to all children in the town limits and private schools as to those attending it who live without the corporate limits. The "public schools are the units, and the obligation is to furnish these free water for the necessary purposes," as stated in plaintiff's appeal. This same section of the contract obliges plaintiff to furnish water free of charge for man and beast at the public fountains, but forbids the taking of water from these fountains for private use. Can it be said that plaintiff must furnish water free for man and beast who inhabit the town and can charge for the men and beasts who drink at these fountains, but who live outside of the town, and the amount of charge can be ascertained by numbering those who live beyond the limits and those who live within the limits? The mere suggestion of such a construction contains its answer. The considerations that determine one should determine the other. In the one case the stipulation is to furnish water free to thepublic fountains; in the other, to furnish water free to the public schools. In rendering judgment against the defendant there was

¶2Error.

¶3Cited: Hotel Co. v. Red Springs, 157 N.C. 139; Robinson v. Goldsboro,161 N.C. 673; Bain v. Goldsboro, 164 N.C. 104. *177

¶4(181)

/151/nc/171 · .json · Public domain