The Portland daily press., 1888-11-06

MoNDAy-The following important decision
was rendered by the Clerk Of Courts from the law
court today.
KNOX COUNTY.
The Rockland Water Company, in equity, VS..
the Camden and Rockland Water Company.
Rescript by Foster y.-Acts of incorporation,
granted upon valuable consideration, partake
OF the nature of contracts within the meaning of
that clause of the constitution of the United States
which declares that no State shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts.
When rights have become vested under them
the authority of the legislature to disturb those
rights is at an end; nor can any subsequent act
control or destroy them, unless such power is
served In the act of incorporation, In gen.
eral law in operation at the time the act was
passed.
There may be such legislative action as to inju-
rlousiy affect the interests of those with whom
sucn contract exists and yet impair no obligation
When State by act of incorporation confers no
exclusive privileges 10 one company, 1t impairs no
contract by incorporating second one with pow
ers and privileges which necessarily produce in-
furious effects and consequences to the first.
BY the provisions of q. 3Sl, special laws of
1880, certain individuals therein named, with
their associates and successors were constituted
a corporation by the name OF the Rockland Water
Company tor the purpose of conveying to the
domestic purposes, including sufficient Quantity
for the extingushment OF fires, and the supply OF
shipping in the harbor of RockIaHd The third
section of said act reads thus: 'Said corporation
Is hereby authorized for the purposes aforesaid
20 taKe nold ana convey TO- into and through the
Pond, so called situated in Rockland and Cam.
den, by pipes sunk below the bottom of its outlet;
and may also take and hold by purchase or other
wise, any land real estate necessary for laying
and maintaining aqueducts for conducting aud
olscharging, disposing Of and distributing water,
and for forming reservoirs. But nothing in this
act shall be taken or construed to prevent the
owners Of mills, or of mill privileges on the stream
flowing through the outlet of said pond, from u.s.
ing the water thereof In the same manner that
they do or have heretofore done but said mill
owners shall not nor shall any other person or
persons be permitted, either by cutting below the
pipes Of said corporation, or in any other way to
OF said corporation.
Bya subsequent act Of the legislature &c. 70
special laws of 1861 amendatory Of the plaintiffs
cnarter TINS company was authorized ito take.
mold and convey" in the manner provided In the
original act "as well the water of Oyster river
pond 10 Camden, as Of Tolman's pond, into and
through the city of Rockland and the town of
rhomaston, and also from the city If Rockland
into the towns OF Camuen and South Thomaston
not exceeding one mile from the boundary line OF
said Rockland; and the corporation shall have
Ine same rights, powers and privileges and be
subject to The liabilities, limitations and condi-
lions and be answerable to parties injured there
Dy IN the same manner in respect to taking and
conveying the said water. as are provided for in
sald ACT, In respect to taking and appropriating
th EVA water q Tolnan's pond"
mis- act further authorized the corporation ito
TAKE, use and appropriate water from both or
ecneI OF said ponds, for supplying the people of
SAID city and towns with pure water and for all
necessary and useful purposes subject to the
Liabilities provided for by said act.o Held. thai
tnere was no exclusive right conferred by either
OF said acts; and that inasmuch as the corporation
mad never taken or appropriated the water or any
portion thereof, from Oyster river pond nor shown
any necessity for SO doing, the water in Tolman,s
pong being sufncient for the purposes designated
10 tne cnarter, the legislature transcribed no
CONSTITUTIONAL rights in gran ing charter TO a
rival company with powers and privileges similar
70 those hrst granted. and authorizing the use
tnerefor OF the water in Oyster river pond
Bill dismissed with costs for defendant