The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1911-08-18

las would render this contract reason
able, we think 1t was the duty Of the de-
Ffen0ant to allege them In an answer. and
not to the plaintiff TO deny them in his
complaint -
In Reed vs.. City Of Anoka, the supreme
court of Minnesota held that a contract
whereby the city bound itself for a per-
'tod of thtrty-one years, at definite fixed
prices, was not prima facie void but was
presumably valid, and that the burden
was upon the city to show that the con-
tract was unreasonable under all the
circumstances. In view Of these and. 9TH
er cases, all can say is that it is un-
certain what the court would say as to
the validity of the contract prices In the
franchise in question. 1t would depend
wholly upon the evidence on both sides
that Of the city and that of the COM
pany. The period for which the village
(now city, of Virginia bound itself is
certainly long one, especially when we
consider the apparently excessive rates
that the city is required to pay for water
and light service.
J. o. In case a consumer refused to pay
his water or light bill for the reason that
the same Is excessive and exorbitant, and
In case the light and water company cut
on the light and water supply, what
right has the city council with reference
to determining the proper charge and re-
curing the company to furnish light ana
water on a charge which it deems proper,
or what other steps can the city take
in the matter to have light and water
service furnished to private parties at
the rate given in the franchise,
I do not find any provision of law au-
thorizing the city to fix charges that The
company may make for service to private
parties or to regulate such charges; but
If the company persists in making and
collecting charges in excess. of the max
imum charges specified in it's franchise
I think the city can bring proceedings to
annul the company's franchise on that
ground; and in such action the court
would annul the franchise unless the COM
pany reduced it's rates at least as to
those described as ma ximum rates in the
franchise.
| 0f00 IN 80
provisions are charged to a private con-
sumner of water or light and If the COM
pany threatens to discontinue its service
to such consumer unless he pays such ex-
cessive rates, he may pay them under
protest, and may then maintain an &C.
ton against the company to recover back
the amount paid, over and above the
charges allowed by the franchise; or a
private consumer may refuse to pay a
rate in excess of that provided in the
franchise: he may tender to the company
the proper amount for the service de-
fuses to accept it and shuts of the con-
sumer's supply, he may begin an action
against the company for damages or may
bring an action to compel the company to
furnish service at not to exceed the fran
chise rates.
The state law provides that the state
shall have the right, from time to time,
to fix the compensation which a COM
pany, such as this is, may charge or re-
not yet provided the means for fixing
such charges, nor has it delegated such
power to municipalities.
In the attorneys statement OF facts,
it is said that the company charges
twenty-five dollars for laying service
|pfpes from the lot line to the company 8
water main in the streets and avenues,
and In some cases, a larger amount.
This it has no right to do against the
protest of the one who seeks to make con-
nections with the water MAINS The
one so seeking to make connections has
the right, under proper regulations to be
prescribed by the city, to dig the trench
for the service pipe and to lay such SER
vice pipe, at his own expense, out to the
|companys water main, and then to de-
mand that the company either connect
such service pipe with its main or that
1t permit such connection to be made;
and it can charge for making the con-
nection no more than a reasonable sum
therefor. There is nothing in the fran
chise which gives 1T the right to lay
the service pipes. II it refuses to make
connections or to allow connections to be
made with its mains, at the request Of q
consumer, for a reasonable charge,
then the person requesting the connec-
ton will have an action for damages on
the ground that the company refused to
serve him. Besides, such refusal would
constitute a failure on the part Of the
company to furnish water, and IL it per-
sisted in that course, there would be
grounds for asking the court for for
Ifeiture Of the franchise
Respectfully submitted.
c. %. BALDWIN.