BENNETT v. TACOMA LIGHT & WATER CO.

by

Docket No. 273

Decided: Friday, December 11th, 1891

Opinion: 3 Wash. 337 (1891)

Court: Anders1 Court (1889-1892)

Thomas J. Anders: Undetermined

Anders

Ralph O. Dunbar: Undetermined

Dunbar

John P. Hoyt: Undetermined

Hoyt

Elmon Scott: Undetermined

Scott

Theodore L. Stiles: Undetermined

Stiles

Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Undetermined votes indicate that the opinion(s) have not been evaluated yet.

BENNETT v. TACOMA LIGHT & WATER CO., 3 Wash. 337; 28 P. 520 (1891).

No. 273.

SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

December 11, 1891, Decided Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County. Action by Nelson Bennett against the Tacoma Light & Water Company, to enjoin defendant from shutting off the water supplied by defendant to plaintiff's premises. Demurrer to defendant's answer sustained, and from the judgment thereon defendant appeals.

Court: Reversed and remanded.

Counsel: Galusha Parsons, for appellant. W. Lair Hill, and Thad Huston, for respondent.

Judge(s) SCOTT, J. ANDERS, C. J., and STILES and HOYT, JJ., concur. DUNBAR, J., concurs in the result.

Opinion By: SCOTT The opinion of the court was delivered by SCOTT, J.--This case is very similar to the one just decided, wherein the same company is appellant and the Tacoma Hotel Company is respondent. (Ante, p. 316.) It differs, in that the complaint here alleges that no greater sum than $ 18 was due the defendant from the plaintiff for water. It avers a tender of this sum, and alleges that the plaintiff had not used the quantity of water which the defendant sought to charge him with. The answer denies the foregoing, and alleges $ 33 to be due it from the plaintiff for water furnished him; contains a copy of the written application of the plaintiff, wherein he applied for water, and agreed to be bound by the rules and regulations of the company, and that in default of prompt payment, or of due compliance with the regulations, that the water might be turned off and discontinued, and it sets up practically the same affirmative defense. It was demurred to, as in the other case, and the same ruling had.

For the reason that the answer raised material issues upon the matters alleged in the complaint, the demurrer should have been overruled.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERS, C. J., and STILES and HOYT, JJ., concur.

DUNBAR, J., concurs in the result.