Case Name: BEAUTY SPRING WATER CO. OF LYONS' FALLS v. VILLAGE OF LYONS FALLS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-03-13
Citations: 134 N.Y.S. 290
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEAUTY SPRING WATER CO. OF LYONS' FALLS v. VILLAGE OF LYONS FALLS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 134
Pages: 290–293

Head Matter:
BEAUTY SPRING WATER CO. OF LYONS' FALLS v. VILLAGE OF LYONS FALLS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 13, 1912.)
Taxation (§ 60S )—Property Subject—Waterworks Company.
Where plaintiff, a domestic waterworks corporation, furnished water to a village under a franchise, and thereafter the water supply became inadequate, whereupon the village obtained the right to construct and operate a municipal waterworks system, which was adequate for domestic purposes and fire protection, and resulted in a reduction of insurance premiums, complainant was not thereafter entitled to restrain the village from enforcing taxes against complainant’s property, levied for the purpose of installing and maintaining such municipal waterworks.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1230-1241; Dec. Dig. § 60S.*]
McLennan, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Lewis County.
Action by the Beauty Spring Water Company of Lyons Falls against the Village of Lyons Falls, to restrain defendant from enforcing certain taxes against complainant’s property. From a judgment (71 Mise. Rep. 577, 130 N. Y. Supp. 845) dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs, at the close of all the evidence, on a decision of the court rendered at an Equity Term of the Supreme Court, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J„ and SPRING, KRUSE, ROBSON, and FOOTE, JJ.
C. S. Mereness, for appellant.
Harry W. Cox, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The plaintiff, a domestic water corporation, challenges the validity of a tax imposed against it by the defendant village for village waterworks purposes, contending that the village system was installed, and is now operated, in competition with that of its own. The question has been here before on an appeal from an order which vacated an order to examine the plaintiff tax debtor. The vacating order was reversed by this court. Matter of Beauty Spring Water Company, 134 App. Div. 17, 118 N. Y. Supp. 659. And! upon appeal to the Court of Appeals that order was affirmed, upon the ground that questions, both of law and fact, were presented which should be tried out in an action in equity. Matter of Beauty Spring Water Company, 198 N. Y. 413, 91 N. E. 1101. Thereupon this action was brought, and after trial the complaint dismissed upon the merits, and from the judgment entered upon that decision this appeal was taken.
The plaintiff has been defeated! upon the facts. As the case now stands, I think plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief. The claim that the defendant has no right to tax the plaintiff for installing and maintaining a municipal waterworks system in competition with its own might be well founded, if the plaintiff had furnished an adequate supply of water to meet the requirements of the village; or, perhaps, it might be entitled to some relief if the supply was sufficient for that part of the village in the town of West Turin, from whose officers it obtained its franchise before the defendant village was organized, and which includes most of the inhabited part of the village. But the finding of the trial judge is that the plaintiff's waterworks system, before the installation of the village system, was at times inadequate for domestic purposes and furnished no fire protection at all; that the defendant's waterworks system, which was installed in the year 1906, is adequate for domestic purposes for the village and for fire protection; and that since the installation of the village system the fire insurance premiums have materially decreased. I think, in view of this finding, which is supported by evidence, the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief, irrespective of any other question.
The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.