Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-10-03
RESCRIPTS FROM
THE Law COURT

I'LL Inv UVOu1
The following rescripts were received
recently at the Office of Clerk Of
Courts Charles w. Jones'
Waldo County Case
Waldo County-City of Belfast VS..
Belfast Water Company. Rescript by
Savage. c. ].
In 1856, promoters and the city of
Belfast entered into a written contract
having for its object the construction
in Belfast of a public water system.
for municipal and domestic uses.
Among other things. the promoters
agreed to set certain hydrants. and
the city agreed to pay for hydrant SER
vice certain sum annually for twenty
years. And the promoters agreed that
at all times after the first twenty
years expired they would furnish water
for the hydrents free to the city. The
promoters also agreed to supply all
water for sprinkling streets, and for all
buildings used for municipal or school
purposes, and for certain other public
city should assess taxes upon the fran
chise and works of the water system.
It was agreed that such of the stipula-
lions in the contract, as the city might
not then have the power to make, were
not to be binding until authority was
granted by q charter to be procured by
the promoters. In 1857, the promoters
were incorporated under the name of
the Belfast Water Company. The
charter authorized the city to con-
tract with the company for water for
public purposes. on such terms as the
parties might agree upon, including the
remission Of taxes upon the real estate,
fixtures and plant Of the company. In
1887, the company constructed the wat
er system, and notified the city that the
fire service contracted for with the
city" was ready for use. The promot-
ers contract was never assigned to the
company, and no new contract was
made by the city with the company
But for thirty years both parties con-
Quoted themselves in apparent recog-
milton Of the contract. The company
set the hydrants and the city paid hy-
drant rentals for twenty years. Taxes
were RENTED to compensate for the
use of water for the other specified
public uses, as provided In the con-
tract. In January, 1915. the company
notified the city of its intention not to
recognize the<contract as Of binding
force, and not to permit the use Of the
hydrants by the city, unless new ar
engagements were made by the city tv
pay a fair compensation for their use.
In bill for an injunction to enjoin the.
company from carrying its intention
into effect it is held. as follows:
1. The promoters contract has been
implicitly adopted by both parties, and
the company is as much bound by It's
engagements, as if it had been express
ly entered into under the charter.
2 When a corporation expressly or
implicitly adopts a contract made by
it's promoters, and obtains its benefits.
it must take 1t with its obligations
and burdens.
9. When a party has accepted the
benefits Of a contract, not contra bonos
mores, he is estopped to question the
validity Of it.
4. 1t seems that the defence of ultra
wires can be made only by the party
whose acts, or the acts of whose
agents, are claimed to be ultra wires
5. Whether water company may
compel the settlement Of a disputed
claim. in case like the one at bar, by
refusing to supply water, quaere.
6. When the parties. instead Of max
ing new contract as authorized by
the charter. adopted an existing con-
tract, and acted upon it for thirty
years, their contractual relations must
be regarded as based upon legislative
authority.
Z. When the legislature authorizes a
city or town to contract for a supply Of
water for public uses, upon such terms
as may be agreed and places no limit
upon the length of time for which a
contract may be made, valid contract
may be made for an unlimited time.
8. A legislative determination Of
public policy. within constitutional lin
itations. is conclusive upon the courts.
9. Under the unlimited powers given
by the charter. the city had power to
contract for hydrant service for all
time, to be paid for in twenty annual
instruments.
TO- For water"company to contract
to furnish free service to the public
is not. at common law. an unlawful
discrimination.
IL. Section 81, of chapter 1923, of the
Laws Of 1913, which forbids a public
service company making unreasonable
preferences Is not applicable because a
discrimination in favor Of a municipal
corporation is not unreasonable
u. Section 80, of chapter 1923, of the
Laws Of 1918, which makes 1t unlawful
for any person or corporation to re-
ceive any rebate, discount or discrim-
ination in respect to any public service
has protective and not a retroactive
effect. 1t does not invalidate any pre-
viously existing lawful contract.
10. A statute which impairs the OBJ
legation Of any existing lawful contract
is unconstitutional and void.
IA. With legislative authority,
municipality may by contract with
water company, fix the value of certain
public services for an unlimited time
as the equivalent of the amount Of
taxes which may be assessed upon the
company's property, so that one may