The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1897-10-07

'"S"NS" '"OOt SOhpnuJ AOi iVo iaii-
ure and refusal to furnish him water at
his residence in Johnson City where
the defendant was operating its water
works.
The circuit Judge hearing the case on
its merits without the intervention of
a jury, found the matter in contro-
versy in favor of the defendant and
dismissed the plaintiffs suit; whereup-
ON the plaintiff appealed in error.
The defendant, Watauga Water COM
pany, was chartered under the general
laws of the state (code, annotated by
Shannon, sections 2409-25O6), for the
purpose of establishing and construct
ing waterworks at Johnson City, and
with the right of condemnation and all
powers and privileges essential to the
we'll being of such corporation. Con-
tract was made with Johnson City for
the free use for its streets and alleys
and to supply it with water.
The general law, code (Shannon) 2499,
required the company to build water
works and machinery of suf-
ticient capacity to supply said city and
the inhabitants thereof with a plenti-
full supply of water" and the com
pany's contract with the city contained
provision that "water shall be fur
nished for families and domestic pur-
poses at price not exceeding the av-
erage price charged to the citizens of
Chattanooga, Knoxville and Bristol. "
In due season the waterworks were
conducted and put in operation under
the law and the contract mentioned.
In 1894 and 1895 the plaintiff, Crum
Icy, who was citizen Of johnson City
and a patron of the company, became
its debtor in the sum Of 81 for piping
and $4 for water rents, the two sums
we're consolidated and he gave the com.
pany his due bill for the aggregate OF
$15. Thereafter he received water
from the company for several months
and paid the required charges. Then,
for time, he did not take the com
pany's water. In August, 1896, he
decided to take it again and requested
the proper representatives of the com
pany to turn the water into the hydran'
at his residence in the city, at the same
time rendering the price of one quar-
ter's rent in advance, according to thu
rules of the company. This reques
was refused and he was denied thu
benefit of the company's water, unless
he should first pay the whole, or at leas
one-third of his outstanding due bill
He failed to pay any part of the du'
bill, and the company refused to supply
the water. One month later he com
menced this action to recover damages
with the result already stated.
The trial judge was in error.
There are exceptions to the genera
rule that person engaged in business
may, at his election and without goot
reason, refuse to deal with some othe
person. These exceptions embrace inn
keepers, common bridge companies
turnpike companies. telegraph compa
MES, telephone companies, gas compa
nies, electric light companies and waite
companies, and are based upon tn
public nature of the business done b.
such persons. Being engaged in pub
lie business, under public grants, the.
are charged with public duties
The defendant, Wstauga Water com
pany, is a public corporation as con
tradistinguished from private cor
poration. By the law of its creatio
it was charged with the imperativ
duty of erecting water works and ma
chinery of sufficient capacity to fun
nish johnson City and the inhabitant
thereof with a plentiful supply of ws
ter; and by its contract with that cit
it bound itself to furnish an ampl
supply of water for the use of the cit
and for families and domestic purposes
Thereby it assumed, first, by necessar
implication of aaw, and, secondly, b
express contract to furnish water to a
the inhabitants of the city upon rel
sonable terms and without discrimini
ton. From which it follows, that I'll
company preached its duty towar
Crumley in refusing to let him h
water upon its regular rates; and,
legal consequence, became liable
him in damages for whatever jury
sustained as the proximate result of Il
! breach.
I These views are not without abu
j dant support in the authorities.
Dillon, with apparent approval, r
8 fses to the case of Foster VS.. Fowle
] GO Pa. st. 81. as holding that col
pany created to supply city wi
water is public and not a private CT
8 poration. l Dill. Nun. Corp. (4th et
sec. 90, note.
= Cook says: "a waterworks compa
is also quasi public corporation.
must supply water to all who apr
= therefor and offer to pay the rates
Q Cook, Stock. Stockh. and Corp.
sec. 932.
4. Morawetz places telegraph, water q
gas companies in the same gene