a consumer refuses to pay more than the legal rate therefor, a court will enjoin such company from doing so: Cromwell v. Stephens, 2 Daly, 15.

Where a person who desires to have gas turned on, on, his premises being duly prepared therefor, signs a contract, stating among other things, that "we, whose names are hereunto subscribed, agree to take gas from The Washington Gas Light Company upon the condition that the company reserves to itself the right to refuse to furnish or at any time to discontinue gas to any premises, the owner or occupant of which shall be indebted to the company for gas or fittings used upon such premises or elsewhere," such contract relates to future delinquencies; and it has been held, that a company is liable in damages to a person, to whom gas is furnished, after siguing the above agreement, for cutting off the supply because of nonpayment of an old bill for gas supplied previously, in another locality: Lloyd v. Gas Light Co., 1 Mackay, 331. An injunction will lie to prevent a water company from cutting off the supply of a patron, who offers to pay in advance the proper legal rate, notwithstanding that the company demands more: Ernst et al. v. N. O. W. W. Co., S. Ct. La., May 9, 1887; Levy v. Water Works Co., 38 La. An. 25-9.

Where water is shut off, without any valid excuse, a person may enforce his right to be supplied by mandamus: McCrary v. Beaudry, 67 Cal. 120.

Where a water company is enjoined from cutting off the water supply of a patron without restriction as to time, the injunction remains in force until modified or discharged by order of the court: State ex rel. Water Works Co. et al. v. Levy et al., 36 La. An. 941.

Where a water company has been rightfully enjoined from cutting off a customer's water supply, and the injunction is discharged, such consumer can recover all the damages he has suffered: Lery v. N. O. W. W. Co., supra.

In estimating damage of this sort, the jury may take into consideration the deterioration in the value of the property for the purpose of sale or rental, and the cost of removing the gas fixtures and restoring the premises: Gas Light Co. v. Colladay, 25 Md. 1.

VOL. XXXVI.—37

Evidence may be introduced to show the nature and extent of the plaintiff's business; that his trade is seriously affected by being deprived of gas and that his competitors are supplied with it. He will be entitled to such damages as will compensate him for his pecuniary loss, as well as for the inconvenience and annoyance experienced by reason of the action of the company: Shepard v. Milwaukee G. L. Co., 15 Wis. 318.

Rates: Companies are entitled to make reasonable charges for gas and water. The fact that a company charges a less rate in that portion of a city in which it is obliged to compete with other companies, than it does in sections where it has a monopoly of the supply, cannot be taken advantage of by consumers paying the highest rate, so long as it is reasonable. Α reasonable price paid by one, is not made unreasonable because another pays less: Schwarz and six thousand others v. Consolidated Gas Co. of Baltimore, C. Ct. Balt. City, March 4, 1887; 1 R. & Corp. Law J. 339; Rogan v. Aiken, 9 Lea, 610; Jones v. R. R. Co., 91 Eng. C. L. 718.

An agreement between a gas company and a municipality, reciting that such company shall sell gas as good and as cheap as is furnished in Boston, New York and Baltimore, means that such company must at all times furnish gas as cheap as it is furnished at the same time in the cities designated: Worcester Gas Light Co. v. Worcester, 110 Mass. 353; Decatur Gas Light and Coke Co. v. City of Decatur, 120 Ill. 67.

Where a water company continues to supply a consumer after his refusal to pay an advanced annual rate, the advanced rate cannot be recovered from him: Aqueduct Co. v. Page, 52 N. II. 473.

It is well settled, that a municipality may, when duly empowered by the legislature, assess specially, the lands along which a water service is laid, in order to maintain the same, and exempt those belonging to persons who pay water rates: Richmond & Allegheny R. R. Co. v. Lynchburg, 81 Va. 473; Jones et al. v. Water Commissioners, 34 Mich. 273.

It has been held in Pennsylvania, that while it would be unconstitutional to empower a water company to make assessments in the nature of water rents upon every dwelling in every street in a city in which water pipes are or may be laid, such would not be the case after the works were transferred to the munici

pality, for the reason that municipalities have the right of assessing the cost of local improvements upon properties benefited. Therefore, the owner of premises upon such street would be obliged to pay the rate assessed against him, even if his water supply came from an entirely different source: Allentown v. Henry, 73 Penna. 404. But, "water rents assessed on vacant lots, at rates adopted by the board of works at its discretion and without regard to special benefits or valuations, are illegal:" 24 Am. Law Reg. 583; Jersey City v. Vreeland, 14 Vroom, 638; State v. Mayor, 45 N. J. L. 256.

It has been decided in England, that where a landlord covenants in his lease, to pay "all water rates and taxes chargeable in respect of the demised premises," he is bound to pay for the water consumed by his tenant: Spanish Telegraph Co. v. Shepard, L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 202.

It is well settled that a surety is not liable for gas furnished to the successor of the person whose bills he has agreed to become responsible for. The fact that the company had no notice of the change of proprietors, will not alter the case: Manhattan G. L. Co. v. Ely, 39 Barb. 174.

A city supplying its citizens with water, is simply exercising the function of a private corporation, and the neglect of city officials to collect water rates when due, is no reason why they may not be subsequently demanded: the right to do so is not lost through the city's refraining to cut off the supply for nonpayment of rates when it might have done so, and furthermore it is well settled that mortgagees are bound for all arrearages due water and gas companies, when they purchase premises upon foreclosure proceedings: Girard Life Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia, 88 Pa. St. 393.

The owner of a large apartment house, who is unable to obtain water above the basement of his building, one-half of every twenty-four hours, by reason of the large quantity consumed in neighboring manufactories, and who has been obliged to erect upon his roof, tanks to collect rain water, to which he is forced to resort for a fair share of his supply, is not obliged to pay a water company according to its rule governing hotels, and an injunction will be granted to restrain such company from cutting off the supply because of his refusal to do so: Cromwell v. Stephens, 3 Ab. Pr. (N. S.) 26.

Where water mains are laid by authority of a city, which supplies its inhabitants, and a consumer connects with the street main, paying for the laying of the same and water rents for two years and the water freezes in the main, because of its being left too near the surface of the ground, in consequence of which the connections burst and the tenants of said consumer leave, because they are unable to obtain water, it has been decided that such consumer could recover the water rents paid and no more: Smith v. Philadelphia, 81 Pa. St. 38.

The introduction of water by a city into private houses, is not upon the footing of a contract, but cf a license, which is paid for: Tainter v. Worcester, 123 Mass. 311.

The claim that gas is of poor quality, is no defence to an action to recover for gas supplied: Great Central Gas Consumers' Co. v. Tallis, 3 Gas. J. 5; Torquay Gas Co. v. Carter, 32

Gas. J. 5.

Mandamus is the proper remedy for compelling a supply of gas or water: Price v. Riverside Land & I. Co., 56 Cal. 431; Lumbard v. Stearns, 4 Cush. 60; The People v. Manhattan G. L. Co., 45 Barb. 137.

Chicago, Ill.

SALON D. WILSON.

RECENT ENGLISH CASE.

High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.

BROWN r. ALABASTER.

Where, during unity of possession, a particular and defined way is formed and used over property which is afterwards severed and granted by the owner to different persons, the right of using the way as it is then used may pass by implication, although it be not a way of necessity, and although the general words of the conveyance are not sufficient to pass such right.

An owner of land erected three houses thereon facing a road, with gardens at the back. Behind these ran a way which gave access from the gardens of two of the houses to a side road, which ran at right angles to the front road on the other side of the third house. The owner assigned to the defendant the plots of land with the two houses thereon, “with their rights, easements, and appurtenances," and afterwards assigned to the plaintiff the third plot, the dimensions of which comprised so much of the way as lay between the two other plots and the side road. The gardens of the defendant's houses could also be reached from the road in front by two passages, but these were unsuitable for carrying away rubbish, etc., from the gardens. The plaintiff disputed

the defendant's right to use the way over his land to the side road: Held, that the defendant was not entitled to this as a way of necessity, but that the right of using the way passed to him by implied grant from the owner, although the general words in the assignment to him were not sufficient to pass such right.

W. LETTS, being possessed for a term of years of a plot of land situate at the corner of Augusta- road and Park-road, at Moseley, in the parish of King's Norton, Worcestershire, erected thereon three houses facing on Park-road. One of these, called "Normanhurst," which belonged to the plaintiff, was situate at the angle formed by the two roads. The house next to it was called "Cottisbrook," and beyond it a third, called "Westbourne." Both these houses belonged to the defendant. The three plots of land on which the houses respectively stood, were in the shape of a long parallelogram, and each of the houses had a garden at the back. The main entrances to the houses were from Park-road, but both Cottisbrook and Westbourne had also entrances leading to the house from the road by a passage which ran along the side of each house, that to Cottisbrook running between it and Normanhurst, and that to Westbourne running along its further side. These passages ended in a culde-sac, and then turned inwards at right angles, passing through a portion of the buildings, and thus led into the gardens at the back. They were four feet wide, paved with encaustic tiles, and were approached from Park-road by one step, with two steps of descent into the gardens. They were closed with doors at each end, and, at their passage through the buildings, they had doors on the right and left hand, which communicated with the hall on the one side and with the offices on the other.

There was also another means of access to the gardens of Cottisbrook and Westbourne, as to which the action arose, being through a way which ran parallel to Park-road along the plot of land at the lower end of the gardens into Augusta-road. It was walled in, and had a door at the road, and also two doors in the wall which gave access to the gardens of Cottisbrook and Westbourne.

The assignments of these properties by Letts and his mortgagees to the defendant was dated the 14th of December, 1878, and the pieces of land were thereby expressed to be assigned