Carter v. the Suburban Water Co.

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John F. Carter, the appellant, is the owner of seventy-one dwelling houses, which are located in West Arlington, Baltimore County, Maryland, on certain avenues and roads mentioned in the bill filed in this case. The appellee is a public service corporation, having’ its principal office in Baltimore City, and is engaged in the business of furnishing water to the appellant and many other property owners in and about West Arlington. The seventy-one houses of the appellant are connected with the water mains of the appellee, and secure their supply of water for drinking and household purposes from them, and have no other source of supply from which water for drinking and household purposes may be secured.

During the quarter ending October 30, 1916, the defendant repeatedly failed to supply said houses with a suitable quantity of water, and the appellant was subjected to damage and loss as the result of the irregular supply of water furnished by the appellee to said houses. On the first day of October, 1916, the appellee furnished the appellant a bill, amounting to $291.42, for water furnished said houses. The appellant disputed the bill, and claimed the legal right to deduct therefrom the losses sustained by him as the result of the failure of the appellee to furnish an adequate supply of water for drinking and household purposes, “but expressed his willing-mess to adjust the said accounts with the defendant and to p-ay it such sum of money as would reasonably and fairly ⁹³ represent the proper charges for the services rendered by tbe defendant; that the said defendant, however, positively refused even to consider the claim of your orator, and also notified your orator that unless the said bills as rendered are paid on or before ten o’clock on Tuesday the tenth day of October, nineteen hundred and sixteen, it would cut off the supply from all the said houses, and leave them, and the tenants therein without any supply of water for any purpose whatever.” The appellee is insolvent. The bill in this case was filed on October 9, 1916, and set out substantially the facts above stated, and prayed for an injunction against the appellee, its officers, agents and servants restraining them from cutting’ off the supply of water from the houses or any of them, and for other and further relief.

An injunction was issued on October 9, 1916, as prayed,—the appellant first having filed an approved bond in the penalty of two thousand dollars as required by the order of Court. On December 2, 1916-, the defendant demurred to the bill upon the ground that the plaintiff “has a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law.” On the sixth day of February, 1917, the Court passed an order dismissing the bill and dissolving the injunction, and from that order this appeal was taken. The appellant filed an approved appeal bond which operated to suspend the effect of the order. The single question presented by the appeal is this: Upon the facts stated in the bill, was the plaintiff entitled to the injunction prayed for?

It is to be observed that this- is. not. a simple, and, perhaps, a common case, where a water company shuts off or threatens to shut off the supply of water from a consumer for non-payment of the amount due for water supplied. It is now well settled that a water company may adopt, as a reasonable regulation for the conduct of its business, a rule providing that tbe water supplied to a customer may be shut off for non-payment therefor. City of Mansfield v. Humphreys Mfg. Co., 82 Ohio St. 216 ; Shiras v. Ewing, 48 ⁹⁴ Kan. 170; McDaniel v. Springfield Water Company, 48 Mo.

App. 273 ; Turner v.