The controversy herein arises from the claim of the board of education of the borough of Glassboro that the borough of Glassboro, who owns and operates through its water department the water plant which supplies the citizens of that borough with water, is obliged to supply the school buildings of the school district with water without charge.
Heretofore the borough has been supplying the board of education with water for its several schools at its regular rates. The board of education now contends that it is entitled to free water and refuses further payments. In consequence the borough has shut off the supply pursuant to its rules.
The bill alleges that under the provisions of the Tax act of 1903 the board of education is exempt from water charges and discloses that the schools cannot longer be operated unless the water supply is resumed. Restraint against the borough's longer refusing to supply water is sought.
Temporary restraint has been allowed with an order to show cause, and at its return defendants stand on the averments of the bill.
The provisions of the Tax act referred to by the bill as exempting the school property from water rates is the tax exemption in subdivision 4 of section 3 of the Tax act, (4 Comp.Stat. p. 5079). For reasons hereinafter stated I think it unnecessary to here determine whether the charge against the school property for water properly can be classed as a tax within the meaning of that section. But it can at least be said that the claim of exemption rests upon too much doubt to justify injunctive relief wholly based upon its existence. A more impressive view appears to be that in furnishing water a municipality acts in its capacity as a private corporation and not in the exercise of its power of local sovereignty and that its water rates are to be regarded as commodity charges based upon contract express or implied.
Assuming, however, for present purposes that the school property is not by law exempt from water rates, I think it yet clear that restraint should go against shutting off the *Page 40 supply until it may be determined by a court of law whether such exemption exists.
There can be no doubt of the right of a water company to shut off supply of delinquent patrons or even require advance payments covering reasonable periods. That right is an incident to corporations of that nature and obtains independently of legislative sanction. See cases collected in MillvilleImprovement Co. v. Millville Water Co.,
