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


Gas in the present charter, or other
advantages not extended to private in
dividuals engaged in private business
He says: "It may be laid down as a
general rule that whenever the aid Of
the government is granted to private
company in the form Of a monopoly,
or donation of public property or
funds, or delegation Of the power Of
eminent domain, the grant is subject to
an implied condition that the company
shall assume an obligation to fulfill the
public purpose on account of which the
grant was made" 2 Nor. Pri. Corp,
sec. 1899. In the subsequent part Of
the same section the learned author H.
lustrates and verifes the rule laid down
by citation and analysis of adjudi-
Gated cases.
''The acceptance by water company
of its franchise carries with it the duty
of supplying all persons along the lines
of its mains, without discrimination,
with the commodity which it was Or
ganized to furnish" 29Am. and Eng.
Eucy. Law, 10.
The decision of the supreme court of
Oregon, in late session, is well ex-
pressed in the head note as follows
81. A corporation organized to supply
water to city and it's inhabitants and
given the right to lay its pipes in the
streets for that purpose is engaged in
public business and may be compelled
to furnish water on reasonable terms to
all inhabitants who apply for it, although
there is no express provision in its
grant of franchise to that effect. 2.
8. Mandamus is an appro-
pirate remedy to compel water com
pany to supply water TO q person who
has right to it"
Haugen VS.. Albina Light and Water
Co., ia L. r. A., 424.
The supreme court of Nebraska in o
later case held that a private corpora.
tion which procures from a municiple
corporation franchise for supplying
the latter and its Inhabitants with wa
ter, and by virtue of which franchise il
is permitted to and does use the streets
and alleys of such municipal corpora
tion in the carrying on OF its business
becomes thereby affected with public
use, and assumes public duty. Tha
duty is to furnish water at reasonable
rates to all the inhabitants of the mum
cipal corporation, and to charge eacl
inhabitant for water furnished the sam,
price it charges every other inhabitan
for the same service, under the same O.
similar conditions. American Wate
Works company VS.. State of Nebraska
80 L. R. A., AT.
Later still the supreme court Of Mon
tana, recognizing the same publ
character and duty of water compa
NY, ruled that the refusal OF such
company "to supply water to tenan
in the possession and occupancy of
house. when he is ready to pay fo
it in advance. and the company
supplying the city and its inhab
tants under franchise, can not be jul
tilted by bylaw declining to contraC
for water with any person except owr
ers of property of their authorize
agents" State of Montana VS.. Butt
City Water company, 81 L. R. A. SO,
These recent decisions were base
largely upon older ones to the sam
general effect from Indiana Central Z
Telephone company vs. State, 11S Inc
206) Massachusetts, Lombard VS.. Stearn
4 Cush, 80; Lowell VS.. Boston, Il
T Mass, 464) Michigan (Williams vi
Nut. Gas company. SO Mich, 400,
Am. R. 266), New Jersy (Olmsted v
Morris Aqueduct, Proprs., Al N. J
Law, 933), and Wisconsin (Shepard VI
Milwaukee Gas company, Wis, $50
20 Am. Dec, 479).
The supreme court Of the Unite
States also holds that water companit
:, and gas companies by reason of the
grants of special privileges and fra
chises, are charged with the obi
cation to render service to the publ