The herald., 1898-09-07

I
Judge Frank F. Oster Of San Bernardino,
sitting In Department two Of the superior
court for Judge W. H. Clark:
| Los Angeles City Water Com
pany VS.. City Of Los Angeles ct al.
The Crystal Springs Land and Water
| Company vs.. City Of Los Angeles ct al.
City Of Los Angeles VS.. Los Angeles
City Water Company ct al.
All Of tho above cases we're on injunc-
tion suits and practically the same ques-
tions were involved. The appointment OF
! a receiver will not be settled until City At
torney Dunn returns from San Francisco.
The opinion in full is as follows:
The Actions Analysed
These three cases arise out Of the same
general subject matter: and while. in
technical sense, they are separate and dis
t.nct actions. nevertheless the considera-
tion Of one necessarily involves issues pre-
sented In tho other two. In recognition Of
this fact and by stipulation Of counsel. the
three cases have been argued together;
they will, therefore. be considered together
by me. +.
In the frst and second actions the Los
Angeles City Water Company and the Crys-
temporary injunctions restraining the city
Of Los Angeles, its officers and employees,
from the seizure Of the distributing system
Of pipe lines and reservoirs through which
water Is now being conveyed to the city and
It's Inhabitants. and from interfering with
the management and control Of said prop
erty or the collection Of water rates and
revenues derived therefrom. In each Of
fthese cases the city has interposed a gen.
erai demurrer which, by stipulation OF
counsel. IL also to be considered and dis
posed Of at this time. In the third action
the city asks that the water companies.
their officers, agents and employees be-.
pendsnte lite. restrained from collecting
water rates or interfering with the man.
assment and control Of the water system.
and that Q receiver be forthwith appointed
BY TIM court TO take possession Of the
property In controversy and to operate.
manage and control the same, collecting
rates and charges for service connections.
All Of the applications now under consid-
Grafton arise on orders to show cause, the
several defendants being ad interim held
in restraint BY the orders Of the court in
the premises. It is stipulated by counsel
for the respective parties that the several
pleadings and affidavits filed In either ac-
ton may, for the purpose Of this Hearing.
be considered as evidence in all Of the
cases, interchangeably.
The Original Contract
At the inception of any intelligent con-
sideration Of the various issues Of fact and
law now before the court for determine
ton, and as a basic element Of the entire
subject matter Of this litigation, 1t be-
comes necessary to construe the agree
ment bearing date the 10th day Of July,
1858. between the corporation known as the
mayor and Common Council Of the City
Of Los Angeles'' as party Of the first part,
and Griffin, Beaudry and Lazard, as parties
Of the second part, and the predecessors in
interest OF the Los Angeles City Water
Company. Counsel for the city contend
that this agreement is a lease; that the
relation Of landlord and tenant was there
by created; and that upon the expiration
Of the term Of the lease, to-wit, on the Dd
day Of July. 1898, the city, as landlord, had
the right to re-enter and deprive the ten
ant. the Los Angeles City Water Company,
Of possession. Counsel for the water COM
panies. however, contend that this agree
hChe 40 hOt a 4cdSS Out d grant, tndt tne
relation Of landlord and tenant does not
exist and. therefore. that there is no right
of re-entry. Again. In effect, II is con-
tended on behalf Of the city that by its
terms the agreement. Immediately upon the
expiration Of the term of thirty years.
ripened into an actual bill Of sale to the
pipe lines, reservoirs and all other prop
erty coming within the meaning Of the
term "improvements'' as the same Is used
In said agreement, and that, therefore
and Independent Of the city's rights as a
landlord, the municipality is entitled to the
immediate possession Of the distributing
system. Answering to this contention.
counsel for the water companies insist that
nothing contained in the agreement amount.
to an actual sale Of the improvements and
that the portion Of the agreement on which
the city rests It's contention Is, at most.
an agreement to sell which becomes effec-
I've only when the purchase money is paid
or rendered.
A Lease and More
Without entering into a detailed discus.
sion Of the rules governing the construction
of contracts. or celebrating the reasons
which lead me to the conclusions hereinaf-
ter announced, am Of the opinion that the
agreement Of 1868 Is lease. but that It IL
also something more. It Is lease insofar
as the waters Of the Los Angeles river are
demised for a term Of years by the city to
The Los Angeles City Water Company, and
this conclusion seems to me to be entirely
with the contention Of counsel
for the water companies that the particu-
lar portion Of the agreement now under
Is grant; lease IL. after
III 10 said. only limited grants grant for