The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-30
COMPANY has PAID UP
End OF Litigation Betwcen Mater Com.
pany and Iron and Coal Company.
BASIS or THE SETTLEMENT
Iron and Coal Company Pays 81 S,333.33
for Water Consumed Aside from
That Specified In Its Contract
with the Water Company.

The action in assumpcrt of the Scran-
ton Gas ard Water company ogains.
tle L-s,cka wanna Iron und Coal COM
Lazy has been settled and a discontinue
aclce CT the proceedings was yesterday
filed in the prouhonotary's office by
Attorney l. II. Burns, representing the
Sea anson Gas and Water company. T'he
s'nc'unt rc.d by the Lackawanna Iron
aEd Coal company Is $lS,333.33.
About two years ago the Scranton
Gas and Water company brought suits
against the L1,ckawaara Iron urd Coal
company and the Lacka,wanna Iron
and Steel company to recover for water
taken from the n.lA.s Cs the Company.
1.lc Lackawanna Irlcl and Coal COM
Lany years ago Eo,1e a coIs.1,. with
the SCcuHton Gas aLd Water company
by the terms Cf wl!ch the lion ari
Coal company was to ray $4,000 a year
for the use of water at its works for
certain purposes. In 1891 the Lacka-
wanna Iron aEi Coal company trans-
ferred It's Misunderstanding business to
the La.cIawanna Iltn ard Steel COM
pany, which thereafter paid the sl0,-
900 a year, and assumed all the condi-
tions of the contract with the Water
company.
A Dis overy Was Made.
Some time before the beginning of the
suit the officers Of THE Scranton Gas
and Water company discovered that
water had for years been taken from
their mains for purposes other than
those specified In the contract between
the parties, and suit was brought
against the Llckawanna Iron and Coal
Company to Ctsain payment for the
water, surreptit.ously taken during a
period of ten years.
The amount claimed was So, 900. An
action was also brought against the
I>acli'wanna Iron and Steel company
for water taken from January. 1891, to
the time of the beginning OF the suit.
AS the Scranton Gas and Water COM
rany threatened to shut off the water
unless the last mentioned company's
bi!l was paid settlement by the pay
ment Of $4,000 by the Steel company
was affected Thereupon that suit was
discontinued.
The Lackawnnna Iron and Ccal COM
pany decided to contest the claim
made on them, and at the November
term OF court last year tine case was
tried. There was a great array of legal
talent, .the Water company being rep
resented by Attorneys l. H. Burns and
Lemuel AmeHman, and the Iron and
Cca1 company by Attorneys John G.
Johnson, of Philadelphia; w. w. Wal
lace. Df New York; r. E. Olmstead, of
Harrisburg. and Joseph O'Brien, of this
city. a verdict was rendered in favor
OF the plaintiff for $27 500, and subse-
quently an appeal was taken to the
supreme court by the Iron and Coal
company.
Argued Before Supreme Court.
In February last the matter was
argued before the supreme court, and
a feW months later a decision was
handed down sustaining the contention
OF the Water company, that the Lack
awanna Iron and Coal company had
no r.Sht TO use water for purposes
other than those specified in the con-
tract. The court held. however, that
the statute of Limitations barred re-
covery Tor period exceeding six years
ana the case was sent back here to rle
retired in accordance with the terms of
uais decision. The application of the
statute OF limitations left the Water
company only two years and e,grt
months they could legally recover for
unless the supreme court should re-.
verse Itself. Before the case went to
the supreme court the Gas and Water
company, to avoid further litigation,
offered to compromise on two-th.rds of
the verdict of the jury.
ms offer was not accepted by the
~ ndcKa'wahna Iron and Coal company.
The case has been on the trial list for
several terms, but has been continued
Tor one reason or another A deter
mined effort was to be made 10 have
1T tried a,s the November term of corn
mon pleas, but the action of the Iron
and Coal company people in deciding
to accept the old offer to settle on the
baSLs CT two-t(hirds cf the jury's ver-
Get. or $lS,393.33. ends the matter and
renders another trial unnecessary.