Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-25

Supreme Court of the United States,
November II. 1S9S.
A CITY MAY GRANT TO a COM
PANY THE FRANCHISE TO SUP
PLY IT WITH WATER, If IT'S
CHARTER AUTHORIZES SUCH 4
GRANT: IN SUCH CASE THE CITY
WILL BE ENJOINED FROM
BUILDING WATER WORKS OF
IT'S OWN DURING; THE TERM OF
THE GRANT. WHEN THERE IS
AN EXPRESS STIPULATION IN
THE GRANT THAT IT WILL NOT
DO so.
THE GRANT OF y RIGHT TO SUP
PLY ~ CITY WITH WATER FOR
25 YEARS DOES NOT CREATE 4
MONOPOLY, NOR PREVENT THE
CHANTING OF x Similar FRAN
CHISE TO ANOTHER COMPANY.
This was a suit in equity by the
water company to enjoin the city OF
Walla Walla from erecting water works
TO supply the city with water. Its char
Ter authorized it To erect such works.
1T also authorized 1t to grant the right
to use its streets TO any person or
company for supplying the city with
water Tor a term not exceeding % years
provided that the rights should not be
exclusive, nor prevent the granting OF
the same rights 10 others. The city un-
der THIS charter granted to the water
company the right To lay pipes, etc.
for the purpose Of furnishing the CITY
with water for the term or - years
ana its ordinance granting this right
further provided that until said con
tract with the water company had boon
avoided ms therein .et forth the cit,.
should not erect. or be Interested in snv
other water works The water company
accepted the ordinance. built It's works
ana substantially compiled with It's
contract under II. After about G wears
the city passed an ordnance for ,hr
erection of lis own water works md
this suit was BROUGHT by the company.
Ihe lower court cnloincd the city from
erecting said works. and It appealed.
inc court says: 1t is sufficient for the
purposes Of this case TO saw that ,bis
court has too often decided for the rulc
10 De now questioned that the grant of
"a rght Ia supply gas or water TO n
municipality ana its inhabitants
through pipes ami mains laid in ,hn
streets, upon the condition of the per
romance of it's service by the grantee.
Is Inc grant of n franchise vested in
the state in considera ton of the per-
romance OF public service. and ar-
yer performance by tho grantee is Il
contract protected by the constitution
OF the United States against state leg
lsiation to impair it, II is true that in
these cases the franchise YVES granted
directly by the state Legislators. hut
IL is equally clear that such franchises
may be bestowed upon corporations nv
me municipal authorities. provided IN,
right to do so IS given by their char
tors. This case is directly in line with
those above cited. We know of no case
IN which it has boon held that an ordj
nance alleged to impair n prior contract
win gas or water COMPANY did NOT
create case under tho constitution
ana laws of the United States. Tho Oh
lection that q court of equity has No
jurisdiction because the plaintIf has n
complete and adequate remedy M law
is equally untenable. The case unon Ito
merits depends largely upon the mower
or he city under it's charter. As Tho
contract in question was expressly lin
'ted to twenty-five years. md ms No
attempt was mhdc to grant an excIu-
sive privilege to the water comnanv
inc city seems to have acted within tbo
s,rictest limitation of the charter. had
me privilege granted been exclusive
the contract might be considered OH
Jectlohable upon the ground that ~
created monopoly without an exnrnes
sanction Of the legislature to that IF.