The Anderson daily intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1915, 1914-06-20

granted by the city or A"GU-SO.. 10
the Southern PWblic J;tili:ics>xunpany
and OF the contract entered into pur-
suant thereto. the plaintiff has furnish
ed water to the city schools. and has
rendered its bills therefor. including
the attached bills, aggregating eighty
two and 39l0O dollars tSS2.:,9,. for
water furnished certsin schools situate
within tile corporate limits of the city.
Separate meters haye teen installed
and are maintained by the plaintiff
at and for each school building With
in the school disLr.:t, and seperatc
reading within The sSbool district ami
separate readings of the water furnish
ed are made monthly by the company
The defendant, disputes the right of
the .plnintiff' to make he charges above
referred ito, on the ssr, und that the
franchises and contricts entered into
between the city of fhiiderson aud the
Anderson Water. Ligff and Power
Company are still, effective In so far
as they require the water company to
furnish free water for thegc Gcl.ools.
On this statement of facts counsel
propUundcd ito the court tho follo,.
ing questions OF law FOR decision:
First: Is and will be defendanr ne
nished TO the public schools. of The
city of Anderson from the 10Th day OF
February. 1914, until the -, day OF.
Septemt.,r. 1915. whom the franchise
of, the old Water. light and Power
Company by it's term expires.
Second. If ,the defendant is liable
for the payment of water bills. should
the charges .,be made separately
against each school. or should the
total amount of water consumed by
all the schools within the corpora.e
limits OF the city be charged in one
bill and the charges be made lIpon the
aggregate amount Furnished. 30 as tn
give the defendant the heneiit of re-
ductions allowed on total, as per aliG
ing scale set ont I'm the contracts with
the city? S..
The questions are not altogether
without difficulty and i have. been
somewhat perpleXed in reaching con-
clusion for the reason that counsel
has cited no case just in point, and
In my own researches-I have not been
able to find any. But I unhesitating-
ly hold that under the franchise grant
ed by the city of Anderson TO ana ,a.-
cepted by the Anderson Water; light
and Supply Co, WHICH was snb9e-
quentiy assigned, With the consent of
the city Of Anderson in the Anderson
Water, Light and Supply Co., which
was subsequently assigned, with the
consent Of the city of Anderson to the
Anderson Water, Light and Power
company, and under which 1t oper
ated In the city of Andersen supplying
water for both public and private us.
and furnishing the public schools In
icaid city, free water, the rlirMic
schools in sn1d city were entitled to
free water from whomsoever operated
|alnder said franchise. This was such n
fright tliat the Anderson school district
could have at any time gone into court
and ,enforced. 80
While 1T was neither party or
privy to said, contract, yet itAwas n
third party for whose henefit the city
of Andersnn had. secured this valu-
able right. This right of free water
FLOR the. public schools was In said
franchise contract expressly stated TO
be- one .of the considerations that I'm
dueed the city of Anderson TO grant
shtdtfranchise. AZ >oe, {: s 49, <. I
81 venture ito think that 1T cannot be
donbtedathat1thc city had n,nerfect o
right to contract for the. ,heneftr0 r0f the
Public schools I'm said city.
s Henderson Water Go. va Trustees,
OF the Graded Schools, 65sS. iE. ,Rept.i
92Ts5ry sjjs;; 81 sSlS, ss 3 . Z. tis.s =
While the authority cited is not
controlling tits very strongly persua-
sive on this1point. SaS.ssa
Now 1t ishoulds be Remembered that
at the time this; franchise was Qrigi-t
snaliY granted ito the Anderson. Wnteri
i Supply scompany there was not In tho
cityso OF sandErsonsan any syatom sofIgrad-
edvsch6ola and tthe ,oniyf puhlicssehaols
! then, In saidtcity were ordinary COM
mon nchoals .of the countysand state.: