FIRE AND WATER

FIRE AND WATER

上诉法院决定最后dispute between the city of Brooklyn and the Long Island Water Supply Company over the amount of compensation for the property and franchises of the water company. The court affirms with costs the decision of the General Term of the Supreme Court and thus finally disposes of this memorable case. The company was incorporated in 1881 for the purpose of supplying water to the town of New Lots, which was, in 1886, annexed to the city of Brooklyn, as the Twenty-Sixth ward. In 1892, the Legislature passed an act authorizing the city to condemn the property and franchises of the company, and the litigation which has just been ended was the result of that act. A question was raised as to what was just compensation for the property and franchises involved and to settle the matter it was taken to the Supreme Court. The court referred it to a commission consisting of Edward M. Shepard, Hiram W. Hunt, Edward Rowe, E. W. Bliss and Charles E. Emory. After hearing a great quantity of testimony, a majority of the commission concurred in awarding the company §520,000, of which §370,000 was for the plant and §200,000 was for the franchise. This report was set aside by Justice Pratt in the Special Term, but on the city appealing to the General Term this decision was reversed, and the award of the commission was confirmed. The company then appealed from the decision of the General Term, claiming that, as its franchise embraced exclusive privileges for supplying water in the town of New Lots, it was worth several hundred thousand dollars more than the amount fixed by the commission, and thus the case came to the Court of Appeals. The points in the controversy on which the parties to the action differ were whether or not the franchise of the company was a monopoly of the public purveying of water in the town of New Lots; whether or not its business was open to competition, and whether or not the rates charged by the company or its other charter rights were subject to modifications by the Legislature. The company claimed that if its franchise was a monopoly, its value was between §1,000,000 and §1,500,000. The commission held, however, that the company did not have the exclusive privilege of purveying to the residents of New Lots, and the Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the General Term, has set the seal of its approval on this opinion.

A CASE is now pending in the Court of Appeals the result of which will be of the utmost moment to fire insurance compaIt is the appeal in the suit of the Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company against the village of Keeseville, N. Y. The company alleges as its grounds for bringing the suit that the village failed to keep its apparatus in proper condition and employed incompetent men to handle the apparatus. The company had insured a residence in the village for §5,000 and the building was burned to the ground October 6, 1892. The company then paid the policy holder §4,500 and took an assignment of the property. In September of the next year the suit was commenced, the complainant alleging that, if the village had employed competent firemen and had kept its apparatus in proper repair the damage would not have exceeded $300. The suit was for §4,150. The Special Term of the Supreme Court in which the case was first tried held that there was no cause of action, and decided in favor of the defendant. It was then taken to the General Term, on appeal, and there referred to Judge 1). Cady Herrick, of Albany. He decided in favor of the insurance company, and now the village has taken the matter to the Court of Appeals. Judge Herrick holds that any city or corporation which employs fire apparatus, for which the insurance companies and property owners pay a tax, and which does not keep such apparatus in repair, or which employs incompetent men to manage fire extinguishing apparatus, should be made to suffer for any loss which may be occasioned by its carelessness. The importance of this case cannot be overrated. If the decision of the Court of Appeals upholds the insurance company’s contention many villages throughout the State will be affected by it. This case would be but the first of many similar suits.