Case Name: The Skaneateles Water Works Company, Appellant, v. The Village of Skaneateles; E. Norman Leslie, as President of said Village and Individually; John Connell, Edwin Whiting and Edward Dent, as Trustees of said Village and Individually; Lemuel D. Hall, Edward Eckett, James A. Root and John L. Shultz, Individually and as Water Commissioners of the Village of Skaneateles, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-12-05
Citations: 161 N.Y. 626
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Skaneateles Water Works Company, Appellant, v. The Village of Skaneateles; E. Norman Leslie, as President of said Village and Individually; John Connell, Edwin Whiting and Edward Dent, as Trustees of said Village and Individually; Lemuel D. Hall, Edward Eckett, James A. Root and John L. Shultz, Individually and as Water Commissioners of the Village of Skaneateles, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
The Skaneateles Water Works Company, Appellant, v. The Village of Skaneateles; E. Norman Leslie, as President of said Village and Individually; John Connell, Edwin Whiting and Edward Dent, as Trustees of said Village and Individually; Lemuel D. Hall, Edward Eckett, James A. Root and John L. Shultz, Individually and as Water Commissioners of the Village of Skaneateles, Respondents.
Skaneateles W. W. Co. v. Yillage of Skaneateles, 33 App. Div. 627, affirmed.
(Submitted October 20, 1899;
decided December 5, 1899.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered August 1,1898, affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee dismissing the complaint in an action brought by the plaintiff as a taxpayer, under the waste acts to restrain the village of Skaneateles from establishing water works of its own, etc. (See SJccmeateles Water Works Go. v. Village of SJcaneateles et al., 161 N. Y. 154.)
Charles A. Hawley and George Barrow for appellant.
William G. Tracy and M. F. Dillon for respondents.

Opinion:
J udgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Bartlett, J., dissenting, and Haight, J., not voting.