The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-01-06
Grubb Declines to Grant Re-
quest for Injunction
Against City
MAY NOW APPEAL TO
THE LEGISLATURE
City Officials Believe Decision Frees
City of All Entanglements-N
Step in Telephone Fight
Unknown

Judge w. l. Grubb rendered his decls
| ion yesterday in the case of The Southern
| Bell Telephone company against the city
of Birmingham. refusing the petition OF
the telephone company asking that an in
| Junction be issued against the city to re.
strain the city commissioners from the
enforcement of an ordinance passed by
| the commissioners December 1s repeating
a former ordinance approving increased
telephone rates for the city of Birming-
ham.
So far as the effect of the decision is
concerned, City Attorney Romaine Boyd
declared it will free the city of any en-
| tanglement so that the legislature can
control of telephone rates and the rates
of other public utilities. In the event
that the case is carried to a higher
court Captain Boyd is of the opinion that
the decision will be affirmed.
The opinion is quite lengthy and con-
tains many citations from the federal
and other reports Judge Grubb holds
that the telephone company is at liberty
to fix its own rates regardless of the city
ordinances, and that it is subject to LA
bilities If they are unreasonable.
Judge Grubb's Decision
Judge Grubb in his decision said IN
part:
This is bill filed by the plaintiff to
restrain the enforcement of an ordinance
Of the city of Birmingham and to have
it declared null and void and cloud on
the PLAINTIFFS title to the franchise to
collect tolls from Its subscribers The
Parties defendant are the city. in Its cor
porate capacity, the three commissioners,
IN their official capacity and also indi-
Nidually, as representing the class OF
subscribers to plaintiffs service who are
or Will be affected by the increase of
rates, who are made parties, under the
authority of equity rule 3S. temporary
injunction is prayed for in the bill, and
the matter is submitted for decision only
unon the application for an Injunction
pendente lite at this time.
The ordinance assailed was enacted
December H. 1913, and, in effect, repealed
a previous ordinance of December o. 1911,
which purported to make effective an
agreement. between the plaintiff and the
city, to fix rates for service to be charged
by the plaintiff to the Inhabitants of the
city, in the future, for a period of five
years.
by its terms the plaintiff was to have
the right to raise its rates, for duplex res
idence service, so cents month to each
subscriber, beginning che first day of Jan
uary, 1914. The repeating ordinance mere
ly recited the making of the agreement,
the passage of the ordinance, that the
contract was ultra wires of the powers
of the city commission, that ii had been
preached by the plaintiffs alleged failure
to give the character of service stipulated
t. be given by plaintiff To its subscribers,
and declared the contract and ordinance
rcscinded and annulled as being both
ultra wires and as having been preached
by plaintiff. This is the ordinance the
validity of which is as5ailed by the bill.
The contention of the plaintiff is that the
repeating ordinance impairs the obligation
Of the original contract and the ordi-
nance ratfying it, and is for that reason
obnoxious to both the federal and state
constitutions.