Case Name: SYDNEY GROSSMAN HOTEL CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LAKEWOOD WATER COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND NORTHEASTERN WATER COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1958-05-19
Citations: 27 N.J. 91
Docket Number: 
Parties: SYDNEY GROSSMAN HOTEL CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LAKEWOOD WATER COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND NORTHEASTERN WATER COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
SYDNEY GROSSMAN HOTEL CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LAKEWOOD WATER COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND NORTHEASTERN WATER COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT.
Argued April 1, 1958
Decided May 19, 1958.
Mr. Theodore D. Parsons argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Messrs. Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona \& Combs, attorneys; Mr. Theodore D. Parsons, of counsel).
Mr. Herbert Horn argued the cause for defendants-respondents (Messrs. Lloyd, Horn, Megargee ,& Steedle, attorneys; Mr. Herbert Horn, of counsel).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered
Pee Cueiam.
We see no difference between this case and Reimann v. Monmouth Consolidated Water Co., 9 N. J. 134 (1952). The great weight of authority is in accord with that decision. Annotation, 62 A. L. R. 1205 (1929).
The question is a close one, but an existing rule of law should not be overturned unless its injustice is clear. We are not satisfied that Reimann is wrong in its overall application.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.