Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-03
SUPREME COURT.
Several Decisions of I'm
portance Handed Down.
j. 7. Steward Versus the Citi-
zens' Water Company.
-Judgmant Rendered in the Case of
Hewitt VS.. Dean ct ux.
The Water Rate Ordinance Declared
LegaI-water Companies Can En-
force the Use of Meters-Some
Interesting Legal
Points.

judgment of the superior court of this
county in the celebrated case of J. 7.
Steward (respondenD VS.. the Citizens
Water company of Los Angeles (appell-
anti and the suit is remanded to the
lower court. The original decision de-
clared the city ordinance of February,
1890, fixing water rates for the ensuing
year, illegal, because it gave the COM
pany the privilege of affixing meter to
consumers service pipe and charging
meter rates, but the upper court declares
this action of the council legal and just.
The salient points of the decision are as
follows:
The defendant is corporation sup
plying portion of the inhabitants of
Los Angeles with water for domestic use
by means of its system of water works
In that city; and the plaintiff is the
owner of certain house and premises
connected with the water system of the
defendant, and dependent upon it for all
water necessary for domestic use or con-
sumption. In the month of February,
1890, the city council of Los
Angeles, in accordance with the
III,
adopted an ordinance regulating the
rates and compensation to be collected
by any person or corporation supplying
water fer domestic use and private pur-
poses to the inhabitants of that city
during the year commencing July l,
1890, and ending June 80, 1897 By
the first section of this ordinance it
fixed certain specific rates for the use of
water furnished for dwelling houses,
according to the size OF the house, with
additional rates for water used for GER
ts.ln specific purposes, such as bath tubs,
water closets, lawn sprinkling, etc.,
commonly called house rates. The sec
ond section of the ordinance declares:
ANY person or corporation furnishing
water to the inhabitants of the CITY OF
Los Angeles shall have the right in all
cases where there is large consump-
tion or waste of water to apply meter
and collect the following meter rates :
for quantities OF 1000 cubic feet or less,
for each 100 cubic feet or less, 80 cents; ;
for each 100 cubic feet over 5000,
and less than 10000, 25 cents.
Any person or consumer of water shall |
have the right to apply meter at his
own expense, but under the supervision
OF the water company, and pay for his
water at meter rates as above, provided
that in no case where meters are used
shall the bill for water be less than 81
per month";
in the month of May, of that year,
the defendant, with the consent of the |
plaintiff, had applied meter to the !
water service OF the plaintiff, and |
through it supplied him with all water
consumed by him during the months of |
lIrlx~ nd Amos ruf anIs. 10 81
schedule OF house rates fixed by section |
six OF the ordinance, the rates of water |
for the house and premises of the plain |
tiff amounted to $500 each month. BY |
the measurement of the meter the de- |
fendant was entitled to collect greater
sum of money, and accordingly it de-
manded of the plaintiff $l295, for the |
water consumed in July, and the sum
of $ll.95 for that consumed in August. |
The plaintiff rendered to the defendant |
on the last day of each OF said months, |
the sum of 1920, and demanded there |
for receipt in full payment of the !
water rates for the month ending on
that day, but the defendant refused to |
receive the same, or any sum less than |
the above amounts of $l2.95 and $11.95
respectively, as a payment of said rates,
and the plaintiff refusing to pay any
more than the amounts rendered by
him, the defendant threatened to shut |
off its water supply and disconnect the
house and premises of the plaintiff from
its water works and system. Thereupon
the plaintiff brought this action to en-
join the defendant from SO doing.
"The judgment of the court was that
the portion of the ordinance set out in
the complaint which provides for meter
rates at the option of the company fur
nishing water is contrary to law and
void. The ordinance in ques-
ton does not, onits face, show that the
rates to be collected where the amount
of consumption is ascertained by met
er, ,are different from those collected from
persons who are rated by the use to
which they apply the water. =
These rates are not permanently con-
elusive upon either the consumer or the
company. If the consumer is of the
opinion that they call for greater COM
pensation then is authorized by the
amount of water which is actually sup
piled to him, he has the right to have |
his exact consumption ascertained and
rated and if on the other hand, the COM
pany is of the opinion that the consumer |
make use of a larger amount OF water
than is justified under the estimate !
made in fixing the rates for specific pur-
poses, it can attach meter and receive |
compensation for the exact amount con-
sumed. In-either case there is nothing |
unjust or inequitable to either party, |
since in each the company receives and |
the consumer pays for the exact amount |
of water supplied. Nor can it be said
that the ordinance itself furnishes any
opportunity for discrimination or dis
tinction between its customers. .. +
"The appeal from the order of injunc-
tion is dismissed. The judgment ap-
pealed from is reversed and the cause
remanded." The opinion was written
by Justice Harrison and concurred in by
Justices Paterson and Garoutte.