delivered the opinion of the court.
Barrell v. Lake Forest Water Co., 191 Ill. App. 269 (1915)
Jan. 6, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 5,982
191 Ill. App. 269
Finley Barrell, Appellee, v. Lake Forest Water Company.
Gen. No. 5,982.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Chables Whitney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed January 6, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Suit by Finley Barrell against Lake Forest Water Company, a public service corporation to restrain it from shutting off the water from the complainant’s premises because of his failure to pay a bill for water alleged to be greatly in excess of what he used. The *270bill alleged an offer to pay a reasonable amount, and prayed for an accounting. An injunction was granted without notice on the bill, and defendant appealed from an interlocutory order overruling a motion to dissolve the injunction.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Waters and water courses,—when consumer may enjoin enforcement of unreasonable charge. A consumer of water furnished by a public utilities company may restrain the enforcement of an unreasonable charge.
2. Waters and water courses,—how water company may collect charges. A public service corporation may shut off water for nonpayment of a bill if there is no overcharge, and a motion 'to dissolve an injunction preventing such shutting off should not be overruled when it appears that there was no overcharge.
3. Injunction, § 273 * —how hearing to dissolve may be had. Under sections 14 ef seq., of the Injunction Act (J. & A. 1fjf 6174 et seq.) a motion to dissolve an injunction should be heard and determined upon the weight of’ the testimony introduced by the respective parties at the hearing.
4. Waters and water courses,—when injunction preventing collection of water charges should be dissolved. An order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction preventing a public service corporation from collecting a bill for water served, held erroneous when supported only by the general statement of the consumer that he was charged for more water than he consumed, and more than he was charged for in former years.
Cooke, Pope & Pope, for appellant.
Frederick Sass, for appellee.