the whole length of it except at the viaduct at the mouth of Panther Creek, and that consists of nothing but a shed and a platform away up on the side of the mountain. Having had the benefit of several extended excursions into this country and personal views of it, I am able to speak advisedly with regard to it.

If this description has been followed in connection with the maps in evidence it will be seen that the lands owned by the water company are in the main where the region is the wildest and where the danger of encroachment and contamination is the least, and where, in consequence, there is the least necessity for their ownership. Along Rattlesnake Run and on the upper waters of the main stream in the vicinity of Spring Brook corners and Yostville they own nothing; their holding are principally of the mountains on either side of the gap above the Intake; the steep hillsides along the lower part of Green Kun and the uninhabited ranges to the south of the main stream about and above the Nesbitt dam. Pure water from the region of necessity flows down to their gates and will continue so to flow regardless of who may own it, simply because the land there is not of a character to invite habitation and no one is going to intrude upon it while any sort of a livelihood is available elsewhere.

Nor can the Act of 1893 (Act 26 May, 1893, P. L. 158) be left out of our consideration, and in my judgment it has an important bearing. It authorizes any water company to acquire and hold by purchase or condemnation such lands along and contiguous to streams or reservoirs from which water is supplied to the public as may be necessary to preserve them from contamination, just compensation of course being first paid or secured to the owner. By this means a speedy and complete remedy is afforded against any danger from nuisance that may threaten the purity of a public water supply. As soon as discovered, if not abated on notice, the company have merely to tender a fair price for the land where it is situated and, if that is refused, to file a bond and have it approved by the court in the usual manner and take possession. Property so acquired beyond question would, within the meaning of the law, be necessary to the corporate function of supplying pure water to the public and would be exempt in the hands of the company in

consequence. But with this remedy available, to say nothing of that by injunction, what need is there of anticipating encroachment of which there is not only no immediate danger but not even a remote probability? No company could condemn an acre of land on any such basis; why, then, should it be permitted to acquire and exempt thousands upon that which rises no higher?

As I said at the outstart of this discussion, I do not wish in any respect to lessen the importance of pure water to the public. It is a prime necessity upon which the health of whole communities is made to depend, and it is not likely to become less with the growth and settlement of the country. Nor do I fail, as I trust, to appreciate the effort of the officers of the plaintiff companies to fulfill their duties in this direction. In buying up cleared land and removing, as they have, barns and outbulidings which threatened the purity of this stream, they have exercised highly commendable vigilance. If, however, as was testified at the hearing, there is a pig-pen at the head waters of Green Run which extends down to the waters of the stream or barn yards and manure piles at Yostville, which wash directly into the channel of Spring Brook, there is something still left for them to do in that direction, and the Act of 1893 may have to be resorted to as a means of getting rid of such unsavory affairs if private moral suasion will not remove them. But on the main question in the case I am not persuaded that a necessity either in fact or in law exists for the large holdings of wild land in which these companies have deemed it advisable to in

Their dams and reservoirs are unquestionably essential and they have been exempted accordingly, with a reasonable quantity of land around and above them to give proper acces> and entire security of possession as well as to keep the general public at arms length. But beyond that I cannot see my way

to go.

The costs of the case, which are small, have been imposed upon the plaintiffs because, although they have established their right to exempt a portion of the lands which were up for sale, as to by far the larger part of them they have failed; and having hung up as they have for a considerable time the taxes which were due upon them, the county and township authorties ought to now receive them without further abatement or delay.

Nicholas Glynn, et. al. vs. The School District of Fell Township. Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 15, September Term, 1899, in Equity.

School District-School Books-Contract.

The provisions of the 25th section of the Act of 8th May, 1854, (P. L. 621) which require that "immediately after the annual election of teachers in each school district of this State and before the opening of the schools for the ensuing term there shall be a meeting of the directors or controllers and teachers of each district; at which meeting the directors and controllers shall select and decide upon a series of school books in the different branches to be taught during the ensuing year; which books and no other shall be used in the schools of the district during said period," are mandatory and must be observed by school directors.

"No general course of studies can be adopted or annual series of text books selected in any common school district, except by the affirmative vote of a majority of the whole number of directors thereof, and in such case the names of the members voting both in the affirmative and the negative shall be entered on the minutes of the board by the secretary." Act 11 April, 1862, section 4, P. L. 472.

Under the Act of 26th May, 1871, no district can make any change in the school books or series of text books used in any school more than once in every period of three years.

Rule to continue preliminary injunction.

H. C. BUTLER, C. COMEGYS for Plaintiff.

J. H. TORREY, EVERETT WARREN for Defendant.

EDWARDS, J., November 9th, 1899.-Although this case hase been heard on a rule to continue the preliminary injunction, the testimony taken on both sides has disclosed its full merits, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to report the facts and the law to the same extent as if it were before us on a final hearing.

The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the School District of Fell township entered into an illegal contract with Ginn & Company to furnish the district with school books for a period of three years. This contract is alleged to be illegal, (1) because the resolution of the School Board authorizing it was passed in the absence of the teachers; (2) because the names of the members voting for and against the resolution were not entered upon the minutes, and (3) because the resolution was passed and the contract entered into before the annual election of teachers.

From the evidence we find the following

FACTS.

1. The annual election of teachers for the school district of Fell township was held August 29, 1899, and the schools opened on September 11th following.

2. August 3, 1899, the School Board met and, according to the minutes, took the action thus described: "A special meeting of Fell Township School Board met on the above date with Edward Haley in the chair and the following members present: Mooty, Ward, Heeman, Hanning, Davis. The first order of business was the teachers' ideas on the books, Ginn & Co. books being favorable. Motion by Mooty and seconded by Ward that teachers be tendered a vote of thanks. Carried." A majority of the teachers of the school district were present at this meeting pursuant to a notice sent them by mail. The date shows that this meeting was held nearly four weeks before the annual election of teachers.

3. The minutes of the meeting of August 7, 1899, are as follows: "A special meeting held in the Coal Brook School on the above date (Aug. 7) with Haley in the chair and the following members present: Mooty, Ward, Heenan, Hanning, Davis. The following business was transacted: Motion by Mooty and seconded by Heenan that the Ginn Co. be given the franchise of the books for three (3) years with the understanding to use the old books until of no further use. Motion carried by full board." As will be seen this meeting was held about three weeks before the annual election of teachers. There were no teachers present at the meeting and the names of the members voting are not recorded. The inferencee is that all the members present voted one way because the minutes say "motion carried by full board."

4. On the same date, to wit: Aug. 7th, 1899, the School Board entered into a contract with Ginn & Co. in accordance with the resolution passed. The part of the contract material to the consideration of the present case is the following clause: "In consideration whereof the said school directors on the ... day of ... A. D. 189. ., at a meeting of the directors and teachers of said school district, selected, decided upon and adopted the books above named, for exclusive use

in their respective subjects, in all the schools under their control, and for a period of three years from this date, and they hereby certify that said selection and adoption received the affirmative votes of a majority of the whole number of directors or controllers of said district, and that the names of the members voting in the affirmative and negative have been duly entered on the minutes of said board by the secretary there of "

The facts recited in this clause are not in all particulars in keeping with the solutions recorded in the minutes.

5. Subsequent to the opening of the schools an effort was made to rectify the errors made by the School Board in connection with the Ginn & Co. contract. On September 15th, the following motion was adopted: "Motion that we purchase from Ginn & Co. books to take the place of ones destroyed by fire in Vandling school and worn out ones in other schools." The board at the same meeting adopted this motion also: "That the minutes of the previous meeting be adopted with the exception of the Ginn Co. contract." The "previous meeting" was the one held August 27th for the annual election of teachers. The minutes of this meeting make no mention of school books or of the Ginn & Co. contract.

6. Although we do not consider the matter material in the disposition of this case we find as a fact that the evidence shows that at no time from June, 1896, to the present time has the School Board in Fell township adopted a serie sof school books in the manner prescribed by the several acts of assembly governing this subject. The business of furnishing books to the schools was carried on in a loose manner. Recommendations of individual teachers would lead to a requisition by one or another of the school directors. There was no concert of action by the board as such and by the body of teachers acting in an advisory capacity.

LAW.

1. The provisions of the 25th section of the Act of 8th May, 1854, (P. L. 621) which require that "immediately after the annual election of teachers in each school district of this state and before the opening of the schools for the ensuing term.