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

ported BY 9 fair preponderence of the
evidence warrant , the application Of the
rule stated
z Whether or not the city could &C
ouire by condemnation as a municipal
plant the light and water plant of the
company under the right of eminent do
main, as provided by the state law and
the city charter, or whether the acquire
ment must be under the method as pre-
scribed in the franchise
From information given me by the city
attorney l conclude that the franchise
IN question was accepted by the company
to which 1t was granted In May, 1893. the
ordinance granting the franchise having
been passed by the village council of the
Village OF Virginia on April 14th, 1898.
BY an act of the legisla ture, approved on
April 18th, 1858, which was before the &C.
ceptance of this franchise by the COM
i'any, any village was given the right to
acquire, by condemnation proceedings,
any public utility within it's limits at the
expiration of any period Of FIVE years
from the granting of the franchise there
for; and it is my opinion that the city of
Virginia can, by condemnation proceed
plant in the city at the expiration of any
five year period from the date OF the
granting OF the franchise to the CON-
pany, upon being authorized by a vote of
the people so to do. 1 am further OF
the opinion Though there is some doubt
in my mind on this question: that, upon
a proper vote of the electors of Virginia,
the water and light plant can be acquir-
ed by condemnation at any time. In
any proceedings to acquire by condemna-
Ction the water and light plant now in
the city, one element of damage would
be the value to the company of the con-
tract provisions in the franchise for fur
nishing water and light to the city, I'M
less such contract feature can be oe-
clared void because Of being unreasona BILE
and exorbitant.
The city is not limited in acquiring the
water and light plant to a purchase there
Of in manner provided by the terms 0.
the franchise, but may acquire
condemnation proceedings.
). Whether the city could proceed
to construct :new municipal ligl
water plant Of it's own and supply the
city and individuals with light and wa
| ter.
The city is authorized to construct a
| water and light plant of it's own if au-
thorized by vote of the people, and may
furnish water and lights to the city and
it's inhabitants.
4. In case the city should build a
plant of its own, whether or not it would
be bound by the conditions in the fran
chtse to purchase for municipal purposes
light and water as specified in the fran
chise.
If the city builds a plant of its own,
it would be bound by the conditions of
the franchise to take from the company
light and water as provided by the con-
tract provisions contained in the COM
pany's franchise. unless such con
provisions shall be declared void for
being unreasonable or exorbitant and
beyond the power of the village council
at the time it was made. A difficult ques-
ton arises in consideration of whether
such contract features of the franchise
are void, and they can only be determin-
ed by an action brought to test the val
idity thereof. BY the terms of the con.
tract provisions, the village of Virginia
bound itself to take from the company
water and light at specified prices for a
period Of twenty-five years, unless the
company's plants should be sooner &C.
quired by the village. The objections
that could be urged to such contract pro.
visions are (a) that the prices for water
and lights to the city as fixed in the fran
chise are exorbitant and unreasonable
and (b that the village had no author
ty to contract with for water and light
for so long period; or probably the OBJ
jections might be expressed as follows
that the village had no authority to con.
tract for water and light for a period OF
twenty-five years at the excessive
prices, If they are excessive. stipulated
in the contract. 1t would be hard to
predict what would be the outcome of an
attempt on the part of the city to OBJ
tain relief from those contract provisions
through the courts.
In the case of Flynn vs.. Little Falls
Electric & Water Company, "a MINI. $50.
the supreme court Of this state held that
contract provision in a franchise be-
tween the city OF Little Falls ana the
company, whereby the city contracted to
pay an agreed price for a specified num-
Der of hydrants, for a period of thirty
years. was void and not within the scope
OF the authority Of the municipal au-
thorities. In that case it was claimed
that the contract called for nearly twice
as many hydrants as were necessary
and at a price double the reasonable
value thereof. The question went to
the supreme court on demurrer. and these