Los Angeles daily herald., 1876-06-20

any part thereof, existing when the
contract was made, is more or less inn
pairing the obligation of the contract,
and therefore unconstitutional. In
the case of Scarborough VS.. Dugan 10
CAL, 308) the same court made use of
this language: 'It is we'll settled that
the Legislature has no right so to regu-
late the remedy as that it shall destroy
the contract by denying all means of
enforcement. A right without REM
edy Is, practically, no obligation at
all.N These views were again approv-
ed in Robinson vs. Magee, Cal, 81,
and in Macauly VS.. Brooks. Is Cal, 81.
In Wheaton, page 444, it was decided
that a grant of franchise which has
been accepted and acted upon, partakes
of the nature of contract so far as to
be protected by that clause of the Fed
eral Constitution which inhibits the
States from passing laws impairing
the obligation of contracts. This rule
applies where the grant Is to munich
pality as well as to grants to paivate
corporations. Paige l02, 10 Barb.
223.
1t is settled that city, in supply
ing gas and water to its inhabitants,
acts as a private corporation, and Is
subject to the same duties, liabilities
and disabilities. 81 Pa LIS, 1Sl. 55
n. Y. so. Hill 53l. To illustrate,
in the case at the bar, the Gas Com.
pany in view of its contract with the
city, is bound to furnish gas to the in
habitants ofthe city who desire 1t, and
if it fails to furnish it, it is liable in
damages. And further, the city Of Los
Angeles has q contract with the Gas
Company for certain period of time,
and at certain precribed rate the
company is to supply certain number
of lamps, and to be- paid by the city a
certain amount of money, monthly.
How can the Gas Company enfore pay
ment in case of refusal by the city to
comply with its contract? The Board
of Public Works cannot be made lia-
BILE. and the city has no control over
the fund to satisfy the demand. The
Los Angeles Water Company has also
a contract with the city; how can the
remedy be enforced in case of the nom
compliance with the contract? If the
act in question does not transfer Obli-
cations, but only powers, the remedies
of these companies to obtain the bene-
fit of their contract, is impaired, and
to impair the remedy, is to impair the
obligations of contracts, and this is un-
constitutional.
8. Besides 1t is not at all clear that
the Act is valid, in that it interferes
with the vested private rights and pri-
vate property of the city.
The gas and gas works, and the
water used for domestic purposes, be-
long to private corporations or COM
panies, and with these, and its con-
tracts, the Legislture has no right to
interfere. 13 CAL, 343; Dillon on Mu-
nicipal Corporations, SO; Dartmouth
Colleges VS.. Woodward, Wheaton
SIT: SO n. r., 12S. If L am correct in
the construction of the Act upon the
last two points, then it follows that
the Act creating the Board of Public
Works in and for the city of Los An
geles is invalid.
The Court estimates in its full signi-
ficance the Importance of the ques-
tions involved, the delicacy of their
solution, and the responsibility in
Cured in the decision. The Court,
however, is upheld by the conviction
that it has done its best in the investi-
CATION and decision of the case, and if
any rights are affected by this de-
cision, they can be fully vindicated by
that tribunal whose superior wisdom
finally puts at rest the controversies in
our Courts.
1t is, therefore, entered that the de-
murrer to the application and alterna-
tive writ be and the same is hereby
sustained, and that the writ prayed
for be, and the same is hereby denied.
SEPULvEDA, Judge.