TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gloucester Water Supply Co. v. City of Gloucester

Gloucester Water Supply Company v. City of Gloucester

Gloucester Water Supply Co. v. City of Gloucester, 193 U.S. 580 (1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 4, 1904
Docket
No. 183
Judges
White
Citations
193 U.S. 58024 S. Ct. 55748 L. Ed. 8011904 U.S. LEXIS 898
Syllabus
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the authority of the preceding case.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — White

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion .of the court.

In the main, this case is like that of Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport, just decided.

The Gloucester Water Company was engaged in supplying the city of Gloucester and its inhabitants with water under a non-exclusive charter and a non-exclusive hydrant contract made with the city. Under the authority of a statute enacted in 1895, similar in tenor to the act of 1894 considered in the Newburyport case, the Gloucester company s'old its plant to the city of Gloucester. After the sale the company petitioned for the appointment of commissioners to value the property. Objections were made by both parties to the award, and the objections were reserved for consideration to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. That court accepted the award for the sum of $576^544 with interest. 179 Massachusetts, 365. Thereafter the present suit in equity was *581 instituted in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, the bill filed containing substantially, similar allegations to those made in the Newburyport case. Similar relief was also sought, except that there was no claim that the commissioners had not made an allowance for the unexpired term of the hydrant contract. After the decision in the Newburyport case the Circuit Court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the bill on the merits.

For the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in the Newburyport case, the decree of the Circuit Court is reversed at appellant’s' costs, and the case remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction. •

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Revere Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Winthrop78 N.E. 497 (Mass. 1906)

Most recent

  1. Revere Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Winthrop78 N.E. 497 (Mass. 1906)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list