The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-02-15
CITY MOVES
IN GAS RATE
LITIGATION
Attorneys For City Of
Sumter Serve No.
tice Of Motion to
Dismiss Complaint
Of Sumter Gas and
Power Co.

.IoSSrS. Lee az NOISE, lLppS dIit,
Levy and Hardy, Nash & Hodges.
attorneys representing the city OF
Sumter and members Of the City
Council, have served the following
notice on the attorneys Of the sum
ter Gas & Power company in the
matter OF the bill Of complaint
filed in the United States district
court, and the application for an
injunction against the City OF
Sumter to prevent interference by
the City Of Sumter with the Sum-
ter Gas & Power Company in the
collection Of rates for gas. fixed by
the company. If the court grants
the petition Of the city and dis
misses the complaint Of the gas
company the litigation over the
question Of gas rates Will end. The
next move will be up TO the gas
company, and it can either shut
down and go out Of business. apply
for q receiver, or continue opera
tons ut the franchise rate:
To Messrs. Purdy e. Bland. and
Hagood, Rivers & Young, attorneys
for the complainant above named:
You will please take notice that
the undersigned attorneys for the
defendants will submit the motion
to discuss the bill Of complaint
herein, which motion is hereunto
attached, to The honorable II. A.
NJ. Smith, judge of this court. 1T his
office in the city Of Charleston. 5.
c.. on Friday. February 18th. 1922
at one O'Clock p. m. Or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard.
LEE & NOISE.
EPPS & LEVY,
HARDY, NASH & HODGES.
Attorneys for the Defendants.
Notice 10 Dismiss.
Now come the defendants and
move this Honorable court 10 dis
miss the bill of complaint herein.
for the following reasons, tt;.t IS II
say:
/. That this honorable court is
without jurisdiction 20 entertain
this proceedings. The nc, Of the
city which constitutes the alleged
deprivation Of com3lainanes nror-
'erty without due process or law is
that portion Of the franchise grant
ed in 1911, which apper;aias ~
rates. The rights Of the city there
under flowed, not from the stase.
but from the consent Of the grantee
under the franchise. II, rs al
legged by the complainant, the city
vas without legislative authority TO
make the provisions in question. the
act complained OF was not the Get
Of the state. and no question under
the federal constitution coul1 arise.
Gam!lton Gas Works VS.. Harlii-
ton, 146 L. S. 25S; 36 L. Ed. 963)
Ii. on the other hand, the city had
such authority, the franchise be-
cam" (. binding contract between
the parties. (Clereland vs.. Cleve-
land City Railway Co., 1874 L. 5.
5l7; as l.. Ed. Nl09, and there
would be 10 jurisdiction in equity
to relieve from the same. (Colum-
bus Ry. etc co. VS.. Columbus, 249
l.. S. 399; G3 l.. Ed. 500. The bill
contains no allegation that the city
claims the right 10 enforce the
terms of the franchise ordinance
by reason OF any authority vested
in il, expressly or impliedly, by the
state, and on the contrary, II has
now and has always been the con-
tention OF the city that it was en-
titled To the benefits OF the fran
chise ordinance by reason OF the
act Of complainants predecessor in
interest in accepting its provisions,
and agreeing to be bound 10y IT'S
terms and requirements.
,. That it appears from the face
OF the bill and the exhibits thereto
attached, that on or about the 2Gth
day OF September, 1911, the City
Of Sumter offered TO one Edw. l..
Rieha, the predecessor IN title or
complainant, through whom its
rights We're derived. and by whose
obligations it is bound. q franchise
or right TO own, construct and op-
crate a gas works in the City OF
Sumter, and to lay pipes. mains and
conduitS in the streets thereof, on
certain terms and conditions set
forth in said franchise. and par
ticularly, that during the continu-
alton thereof, under the conditions
shown by the bin 10 be now exist
ing. that the price TO be charged
for gas should not exceed the sum
of Si.45 per thousand cubic feet.
subject TO discount for prompt pay
ment OF bills, and that it further
appears from the said bill and cX-
hititS, that thereafter the said Ed
ward h. Ritha, for himself and
his SUCCESSORS and assigns. duly ac-
ccptcd he terms and conditions OF
said gas franchise, and agreed to
be bound by al Of its conditions,
provisions and requirements: that
the said agreement N the part OF
The said f,dw l.. Eicha WAS and i
binding and valid as to complaint.
>. That there Is no showing III
the bill its exhibits and allegations.
of any facts or circumstances whica
in lay, or equity, are sufficient 10
relieve complainant Us the Sllc-
ct."Sor OF The said Edw. l.. RichL,