The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-09-26

anu are entitled ODe let into the tull
performance and enjoyment of tie
same. for furnishing the city with the
stipulated supply Of water for the period
OF twenty years; ~ that the defendant
shall do and perform, on its part, all tie
covenants of said contract; (3) that the
defendant be restrained from any inter-
ference with the plaintiffs in the per-
formance OF the contract; (4 that the
plaintiffs are entitled to have get apart
and reserved the proceeds |. he water
rents for the payment of their annual
compensation, and the defendant be en-
Joined from making other use of the
said Water Works; and i5) that tho
plaintiffs may have suoh other relief as
may be just. The plaintiffs also exhibit
ed, with their complaint, copy of the
contract therein set forth.
The defendant fled its answer. admit
ting the execution of the contract in
question. between itself and Samuel A,
Peerce. Jr., for himself, and as trustee
for William Sprague, in the terms set
forth in the complaint. disputing and
denying the Interpretation put upon the
contract by the plaintiffs, in various
essential particulars that any
existed between itself and the plaintiffs:
denying the right of the original parties
OF the second Fart to assign or transfer
their contract without the consent of
tho other contracting party; denying
that such consent has been given; de-
nying that there is mutually in said
contract; denying that the plaintiffs
have performed the said contract on
their part, as alleged in their complaint:
denying that the Water Works we're
completed within the time required by
the contract, or are, in fact, now COM
pieted according to the contract; deny
ing that 1t has done any injury to the
lpaintiffs in the manner set forth in
their complaint, and denying the right
OF Pearco and Sprague. or either of
them, to any use or control OF the old
Water Works or any part thereof. ,r
For answer to the plaintiffs second
cause Of action, the defendant denies.
in general, the allegations of the COM
plant: AYERS that the plaintiffs have
failed to perform their covenants, and
denies that the defendant has deprived
the plaintiffs of any security required
by said contract.
After the fling of the complaint. and
before the fling Of the answer, the
plaintiffs moved before me for a tempo
rary injunction, pending the full hear.
ing OF the cause to restrain the defend
ant from interfering with the plaintiffs
use Of the old Water Works aud the
general execution of their contract to
furnish the city with its supply of water,
aud to restrain the defendant from ap-
appropriating TO other uses than the
payment OF the plaintiffs, the proceeds
OF the water rents and water taxes.
Upon the proofs and arguments then
nbm.tt.ti, granted the injunction, re-
straining the defendant from oil inter-
fereice with the plaintiffs in using the
old Watsr Works and in furnishing the
city its supply of water, but denied as
premature the application for an injunc-
ton to restrain the defendant from ap-
propri"ting to other uses the proceeds
OF water rents and water taxes collected
by the city.
By special assignment of the court,
aud upon agreement of counsel, the
cause came on to be heard before me at
Chambers. in Columbia, July g. 4
large number of witnesses were offered
and examined by both parties. and full
arguments were submitted by the re-
spcctive counsel.
After careful consideration and exnmi-
nation of the whole case. now proceed
W Stass w ScoS.uHlnNs, H!tG s.S REASONS
therefor. l.may premise. however, that
during the hearing Of The cuse, refused
scvernI timrs to al ow the defendant to
introduce evidence upon points not
presented by the pieatiings. aud il my
decision [ shall ho,ice. exo-pI the
issues which are properly embraced and
presented by the complaint and an
swer. Those issues. in my opinion, are,
in general. these:
l. First. AS to the right of the plain
tiffs. as asssignees, to maintain this
action
H. Second. as to the fact of the per-
formanco by the plaintiffs of certain
work which, by the contract, they were
required to perform.
III. Third. AS to the plaintiffs right.
in general, to relief, and particularly to
the special relief prayed Tor in the COM
plant.
One OF the questions most elaborateIy
discussed by the counsel for the defend
ant was the character ind nature OF the
action. For tho defendant, it was
argued tint it was stfiotly an action for
specific performance Of contract. and
subject to all thar and principles of
law governing such actions under the