Title: CITY OF BILLINGS v PUBLIC SERVICE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-358
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 1981

NO. 80-358 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF JNWl"ANA 1981 CITY OF BILLINGS, Petitioner and Appellant, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF P i q O N T A N A ; COUNTY WATER DISTRICT OF BILLINGS HEIGHTS, Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Calton Law Firm, Billings, Montana Calvin A. Calton argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Crowley, Haughey, Hansen, Toole & Dietrich, Billings, Montana Thomas Kelley argued, Billings, Montana Robert Smith argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: June 9, 1981 ~ecided: J U L 2 9 1981 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . The C i t y of B i l l i n g s ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to a s C i t y ) f i l e d a complaint w i t h t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission (PSC) on J u n e 17, 1974, to p r o t e s t t h e u n i l a t e r a l expansion by t h e County Water District of B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s ( D i s t r i c t ) of its b o u n d a r i e s . The C i t y had e n t e r e d a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t i n 1963 pur- s u a n t t o which t h e C i t y was o b l i g a t e d t o s e l l water t o t h e D i s t r i c t . The C i t y a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t had been n u l l i f i e d , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t r e q u i r e d t h e C i t y to f u r - n i s h water s o l e l y f o r use w i t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l District b o u n d a r i e s . Following a h e a r i n g on t h e matter, t h e PSC i s s u e d its Order N o . 4366 i n Docket N o . 6349, d a t e d J u l y 20, 1977, i n which it determined t h a t it had no j u r i s d i c t i o n to i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r a c t , t h a t it had no a u t h o r i t y to f i x t h e District's b o u n d a r i e s , t h a t it would have t h e power t o modify t h e c o n t r a c t i f r a t e s o r s e r v i c e were a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d , b u t t h a t such a showing had n o t been made by t h e C i t y . The C i t y f i l e d a p e t i - t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review of t h e PSC1s o r d e r and a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y judgment d e f i n i n g t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s under t h e c o n t r a c t . P u r s u a n t to s t i p u l a t i o n t h i s a c t i o n was submitted to t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g f o r a d e c i s i o n based on t h e PSC r e c o r d and t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e c o r d . On J u l y 24, 1980, t h e District Court e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment a f f irming t h e PSC o r d e r and d e c l a r i n g t h e c o n t r a c t v a l i d . The D i s t r i c t Court f u r t h e r concluded t h a t t h e C i t y was o b l i g a t e d to p r o v i d e w a t e r t o t h e expanded District and t h a t t h e District need n o t o b t a i n t h e C i t y ' s or t h e PSC's a p p r o v a l p r i o r to expanding i t s boundaries. From t h e judgment t h e C i t y a p p e a l s . The C i t y of B i l l i n g s purchased t h e C i t y Water U t i l i t y from t h e Montana Water Company i n 1915. The Montana P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission h a s assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e u t i l i t y s i n c e t h e Commission was c r e a t e d i n 1913. S i n c e t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e Municipal Revenue Bond A c t of 1939 ( s e c t i o n 7-7-4401, e t s e q . , MCA), a l l major c a p i t a l improvements have been made p u r s u a n t t o t h e A c t . I n 1958 t h e County Water District of B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s w a s c r e a t e d under t h e a u t h o r i t y of s e c t i o n 7-13-2201 e t s e q . , MCA. I n June of 1963 it c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e C i t y to r e c e i v e water ser- v i c e from t h e C i t y system. Water bought from t h e C i t y is s o l d by t h e D i s t r i c t t o its customers i n B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s who are w i t h i n t h e D i s t r i c t b o u n d a r i e s as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e electors. The c o n t r a c t provided t h a t t h e District would b u i l d a water main from t h e District's r e s e r v o i r to connect w i t h a w a t e r main t o be c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e C i t y . Both p a r t i e s performed t h e s e o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e c o n t r a c t , and t h e C i t y h a s been pro- v i d i n g water t o t h e District through t h i s system. I n 1971, t h e C i t y p e t i t i o n e d t h e PSC f o r an i n c r e a s e i n water rates i n o r d e r to fund improvements n e c e s s a r y to meet t h e i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r water. The PSC g r a n t e d t h e rate i n c r e a s e and as p a r t of its o r d e r No. 4044, Docket N o . 6108, s p e c i f i c a l l y approved t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e C i t y and t h e District. I n 1972, t h e C i t y s e n t a letter to W i l l i a m Johnson of t h e PSC recommending " t h e s e r v i c e area f o r t h e B i l l i n g s Water Department" and r e q u e s t i n g a p p r o v a l of t h e same. On February 23, 1972, t h e PSC s e n t t h e C i t y a letter approving t h e map of t h e w a t e r s e r v i c e a r e a f i l e d by t h e City. No h e a r i n g was conducted concerning t h e letters or t h e map, and t h e D i s t r i c t was n o t n o t i f i e d a t a l l . The B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s s e r v i c e area was i n c l u d e d on t h e map. The C i t y h a s followed t h e same p r o c e d u r e Eor e n l a r g i n g its s e r v i c e area s i n c e t h e PSC a p p r o v a l i n 1972. Some enlargements of t h e B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s s e r v i c e area were p l a c e d on t h e map i n t h e same f a s h i o n . On August 23, 1973, t h e District n o t i f i e d t h e C i t y t h a t it had r e c e i v e d p e t i t i o n s a s k i n g t h a t c e r t a i n land be added to t h e D i s t r i c t . The l e t t e r c o n t a i n e d a n o t i c e of a n e l e c t i o n to be h e l d on September 19, 1973, p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 16-4531, R.C.M. 1947, (now c o d i f i e d as s e c t i o n 7-13-2341, XCA). The District e x p l a i n e d t h a t a new s c h o o l w a s t o be b u i l t on p a r t of t h e land i n v o l v e d , t h a t t h e s c h o o l grounds were t o be watered from a w e l l , and t h a t a few new homes would a l s o be added. The letter stated t h a t no a d d i t i o n a l burden to t h e C i t y ' s water system w a s expected a s a r e s u l t of t h e s e a d d i t i o n s . The C i t y o b j e c t e d to t h e e l e c t i o n , contending t h a t land c o u l d n o t be added to t h e District w i t h o u t PSC a p p r o v a l . The C i t y had been e x p e r i e n c i n g s e v e r e water s h o r t a g e s . The District conducted t h e e l e c t i o n and t h e land was added to t h e District. I n a letter to t h e C i t y , t h e District e x p l a i n e d t h e u r g e n t need f o r water s e r v i c e t o t h e s c h o o l i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t many of t h e w e l l s were contaminated by sewage and t h e use of s u c h water as d r i n k i n g water could r e s u l t i n a h e a l t h h a z a r d . The C i t y f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e PSC a g a i n s t t h e District f o r having added land t o t h e District w i t h o u t t h e appro- v a l of t h e C i t y and t h e PSC. The C i t y contended t h a t due t o t h e water s h o r t a g e t h e added s e r v i c e area would a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e C i t y ' s c a p a b i l i t y to s e r v e its customers. A t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g , a major expansion of t h e C i t y water p l a n t w a s underway to improve t h e water s u p p l y and d i s - t r i b u t i o n system. The PSC found it had no j u r i s d i c t i o n to i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e C i t y and t h e District b u t t h a t it would have j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify t h e c o n t r a c t i f an a d v e r s e impact on t h e C i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e was proved. N o s u c h impact w a s shown and t h e PSC d e c l i n e d t o modify t h e c o n t r a c t . The d i s p u t e w a s t a k e n to t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n a combined a c t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review of t h e PSC o r d e r and f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t . The District Court i s s u e d e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a f f i r m i n g t h e PSC's o r d e r N o . 4366 and o t h e r w i s e s u p p o r t i n g t h e District's p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e C i t y w a s o b l i g a t e d by c o n t r a c t t o p r o v i d e w a t e r s e r v i c e t o t h e expanded D i s t r i c t . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal may be s t a t e d g e n e r a l l y a s f o l l o w s : 1) Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying t h e C i t y ' s motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s ? 2 ) Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n its d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t of t h e PSC1s j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e matters a r i s i n g i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n ? 3 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n its d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment, i n c l u d i n g q u e s t i o n s of d u r a t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t , rates and maximum s e r v i c e o b l i g a t i o n ? Subsequent t o o r a l argument on t h i s matter, c o u n s e l f o r t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s f i l e d a motion r e q u e s t i n g t h i s Court t o c a u s e an i n v e s t i g a t i o n to be made t o d i s c o v e r whether t h e f u l l t r a n s c r i p t of t h e PSC h e a r i n g and a l l e x h i b i t s were a v a i l a b l e to t h e District Court and to t h i s Court. W e f i n d such an i n v e s t i g a - t i o n unnecessary a s t h e t r a n s c r i p t , e x h i b i t s and maps are i n c l u d e d i n o u r record and were a v a i l a b l e to t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I. REVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURE. The C i t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n denying t h e C i t y ' s motion to amend t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . The C i t y f i r s t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n a d o p t i n g v e r b a t i m t h e proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e District . The C i t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t abandoned its d u t y under Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., t o " f i n d t h e f a c t s s p e c i a l l y and s t a t e separa- t e l y its c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w thereon." I n s u p p o r t of its argument t h e C i t y cites Compton v. G i l m o r e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 98 Idaho 190, 560 P.2d 861; Matheson v. Harris ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 98 Idaho 758, 572 P.2d 861; P a t t i s o n T r u s t v. B o s t i a n (19761, 90 N.M. 54, 559 P.2d 842; Duffin v . P a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 212 Kan. 772, 512 P.2d 442. However, t h e C i t y h a s misconstrued t h e s e cases. In t h e i n s t a n t case , t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n v i t e d both parties t o submit proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r i o r to making h i s d e c i s i o n . In t h e cases c i t e d by t h e C i t y , t h e judge made h i s d e c i s i o n and t h e n r e q u e s t e d pre- v a i l i n g counsel to d r a f t t h e f i n d i n g s . The l a t t e r p r a c t i c e h a s been disapproved by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court; n e v e r t h e l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s are allowed to s t a n d u n l e s s t h e y are n o t supported by t h e e v i d e n c e . U.S. v. E l Paso N a t u r a l Gas ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 376 U.S. 651, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 1 2 L.Ed.2d 12; U.S. v. C r e s c e n t Amusement Co. ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 323 U.S. 173, 65 S.Ct. 254, 89 L.Ed. 160. I n Tomaskie v. Tomaskie ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 625 P.2d 536, 38 St.Rep. 416, we discouraged t h e p r a c t i c e of a d o p t i n g v e r b a t i m t h e proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s submitted by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . The purpose of t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s is b e t t e r s e r v e d i f t h e c o u r t p r e p a r e s its own f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , r e l y i n g on t h e p a r t i e s f o r guidance and a s s i s t a n c e . However, t h e s t a n d a r d f o r review of t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s remains t h e same: [The adopted] f i n d i n g s , though n o t t h e product o f t h e workings of t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ' s mind, are f o r m a l l y h i s ; t h e y are n o t t o be r e j e c t e d out-of-hand, and t h e y w i l l s t a n d i f supported by t h e evidence." U.S. v. E l Paso N a t u r a l Gas, 376 U.S. a t 656, 84 S.Ct. a t 1047, 1 2 L.Ed.2d a t 17. W e conclude t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s are supported by t h e e v i d e n c e and t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court committed no error i n adopting t h e pro- posed f i n d i n g s of t h e District, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of t h e c o m p l e x i t y of t h i s case. The i s s u e s to be determined i n t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n were submitted to t h e c o u r t by a s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s . The C i t y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t r e s o l v e i n its f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a l l of t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by t h e C i t y i n t h a t s t i p u l a t i o n . The District Court is n o t bound to r u l e on a l l of t h e i s s u e s s t i p u l a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n . The c o u r t is e n t i t l e d i n its d i s c r e t i o n to r e f u s e to r u l e on i s s u e s which are s p e c u l a t i v e , c o n j e c t u r a l and academic, which are unnecessary to t h e r e s o l u t i o n of an e x i s t i n g c o n t r o v e r s y o r which merely s e e k l e g a l a d v i c e on e v e n t u a l i t i e s which may or may n o t arise i n t h e f u t u r e . Montana Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n v. I n t a k e Water Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 416, 558 P.2d 1110. The Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment A c t is n o t a d e v i c e to be used by l i t i g a n t s "to f i s h i n j u d i c i a l ponds f o r l e g a l advice." L i t t l e v. Wachovia Bank & T r u s t Co. ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 252 N.C. 229, 1 1 3 S.E.2d 689, 701. Moreover, we have reviewed t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and have found t h a t a l l of t h e major i s s u e s were addressed by t h e District Court. No s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n s were made w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e f f e c t of t h e Municipal Revenue Bond A c t and t h e annex- a t i o n , zoning and s u b d i v i s i o n s t a t u t e s on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e PSC. S i n c e t h o s e i s s u e s were d i s c u s s e d i n t h e b r i e f s submitted t o t h e District C o u r t , r e j e c t i o n of t h o s e arguments may be implied from t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e PSC had f u l l r e g u l a t o r y power o v e r t h e C i t y . W e f i n d t h a t t h e District Court d i d n o t err i n denying t h e C i t y ' s motion t o amend its f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . 11. J U D I C I A L REVIEW O F PSC ORDER. The C i t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e District Court e r r e d i n its d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e e x t e n t of t h e PSC's j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e matters a r i s i n g i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . The District Court a f f i r m e d t h e o r d e r of t h e PSC i n which t h e PSC made t h e f o l l o w i n g conclu- s i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to its j u r i s d i c t i o n : 1) T h a t its a p p r o v a l i n 1972 o f s e r v i c e area b o u n d a r i e s f o r t h e C i t y , which included t h e District, w a s an act i n e x c e s s o f its j u r i s d i c t i o n ; 2 ) t h a t it had f u l l r e g u l a t o r y power o v e r t h e C i t y ; 3 ) t h a t its power o v e r t h e District was l i m i t e d to its a u t h o r i t y t o i n t e r v e n e i n any c o n t r a c t made by a p u b l i c u t i l i t y ; 4 ) t h a t it h a s power t o modify a c o n t r a c t o n l y i f t h e c o n t r a c t p o s e s an immediate t h r e a t to t h e C i t y ' s a b i l i t y to s e r v e its customers o r i f it a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s t h e rate s t r u c t u r e ; 5 ) t h a t t h e C i t y ' s water s e r v i c e area does n o t i n c l u d e t h e D i s t r i c t ; 6 ) t h a t t h e PSC h a s no a u t h o r i t y to f i x t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e District; and 7 ) t h a t it had no a u t h o r i t y t o i n t e r p r e t t h e 1963 c o n t r a c t between t h e C i t y and t h e District. The C i t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e Municipal Revenue Bond A c t of 1939, s e c t i o n s 7-7-4401 e t seq., MCA, p r e c l u d e s j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e PSC o v e r t h e C i t y . The A c t p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e C i t y s h a l l have power t o p r e s c r i b e f e e s f o r t h e s e r v i c e s , f a c i l i t i e s and com- m o d i t i e s f u r n i s h e d by an u n d e r t a k i n g financed p u r s u a n t to t h e A c t . S e c t i o n s 7-7-4404 and 7-7-4424(1), MCA. The A c t d o e s n o t mention t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e PSC, and t h u s t h e C i t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e PSC h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a m u n i c i p a l i t y o p e r a t i n g a u t i - l i t y under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e A c t . W e d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e C i t y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e . For r e a s o n s which we w i l l e x p l a i n i n o u r o p i n i o n i n C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission ( N o . 81-24), w e conclude t h a t t h e C i t y does have t h e power to set r a t e s , s u b j e c t to m o d i f i c a t i o n by t h e PSC i f such rates are u n j u s t or u n r e a s o n a b l e , s e c t i o n 69-3-330, MCA, and t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e PSC is n o t l i m i t e d by t h e Municipal Revenue Bond A c t . The C i t y n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s on a n n e x a t i o n , s e c t i o n 7-13-4314, MCA; s u b d i v i s i o n s , s e c t i o n s 76-3-101 e t s e q . , MCA; and zoning, s e c t i o n 76-1-101 e t seq., MCA, have a b e a r i n g on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e PSC i n t h i s case. W e have examined t h e s e s t a t u t e s and f i n d t h e y are n o t r e l e v a n t to t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e us. Three f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e x t e n t of PSC j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e matters a r i s i n g i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n are r a i s e d by t h e C i t y as f o l l o w s : 1) Does t h e PSC have a u t h o r i t y t o determine water s e r v i c e a r e a boundaries of t h e City? 2 ) Does t h e PSC have any j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e District with r e s p e c t t o its water s e r v i c e a r e a boundaries? 3 ) What j u r i s d i c t i o n does t h e PSC have with r e s p e c t t o t h e 1963 c o n t r a c t between t h e City and the D i s t r i c t ? With regard t o the f i r s t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e , t h e City a r g u e s t h a t t h e PSC has a u t h o r i t y t o determine the boundaries of t h e C i t y ' s water s e r v i c e a r e a , which t h e City contends includes t h e District. The City i n 1972 submitted a "recommended s e r v i c e a r e a " map t o the PSC along with a letter s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a r e a included the water d i s t r i c t s served by t h e City and r e q u e s t i n g approval of the water s e r v i c e a r e a boundaries. The map included the B i l l i n g s Heights ~ i s t r i c t . The PSC approved t h e map and subsequently approved changes, including some changes w i t h i n t h e District boundaries. The PSC i n its order No. 4366 concluded t h a t its approval of the C i t y ' s water s e r v i c e a r e a including the District was i n excess of its j u r i s d i c t i o n . The PSC determined t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t was not w i t h i n the C i t y ' s water s e r v i c e a r e a , noting t h a t : "When a p u b l i c u t i l i t y makes a s a l e f o r r e s a l e , its s e r v i c e a r e a s t o p s a t t h e p o i n t a t which t h e product is t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i n g u t i l i t y . The s e r v i c e o b l i g a t i o n a l s o s t o p s a t t h a t p o i n t . A customer of t h e District who was r e c e i v i n g poor s e r v i c e would look t o the D i s t r i c t t o r e c t i f y t h e s i t u a t i o n . H e would have no remedy a g a i n s t the City, because he has no r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e City." W e agree t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t is a s e p a r a t e u t i l i t y with its own water s e r v i c e a r e a . The City is o b l i g a t e d by c o n t r a c t t o s e l l water t o the D i s t r i c t and has no standing t o o b j e c t t o t h e water s e r v i c e a r e a of t h a t u t i l i t y . The PSC has no j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e expansion of t h e District boundaries. According t o s e c t i o n 7-13-2341, MCA, c o n t r o l over t h e s i z e of t h e District is e x p r e s s l y vested i n t h e board of d i r e c t o r s and the e l e c t o r s . The s t a t u t e makes no men- t i o n of a r e q u i r e m e n t of PSC a p p r o v a l b e f o r e land may be added t o a county water d i s t r i c t . The PSC was n o t g i v e n j u r i s d i c t i o n t o f i x t h e b o u n d a r i e s of a county water d i s t r i c t and as an admi- n i s t r a t i v e agency t h e PSC may n o t assume j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h o u t e x p r e s s d e l e g a t i o n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . C i t y of Polson v. p u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5 Mont. 464, 473 P.2d 508. The PSC h a s no c o n t r o l o v e r t h e water s e r v i c e area of a u t i l i t y e x c e p t to t h e e x t e n t of d e t e r m i n i n g on a case-by-case b a s i s whether a d e q u a t e s e r v i c e is provided a t r e a s o n a b l e rates to c u s t o m e r s who are w i t h i n t h e s e r v i c e area. C i t y o f P o l s o n , -- s u p r a ; s e c t i o n 69-3-201, MCA. F i n a l l y , what j u r i s d i c t i o n does t h e PSC have w i t h respect t o t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e C i t y and t h e D i s t r i c t ? The PSC determined t h a t it had no j u r i s d i c t i o n to i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r a c t and t h a t it had power to i n t e r f e r e w i t h a c o n t r a c t o n l y i f t h e c o n t r a c t p r e s e n t s a n immediate t h r e a t to t h e u t i l i t y ' s a b i l i t y to s e r v e or i f t h e c o n t r a c t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s t h e rate s t r u c t u r e . The District Court c o r r e c t l y a f f irmed t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s . S e c t i o n 69-3-103(1), MCA, states t h a t t h e PSC d o e s n o t have j u d i c i a l powers. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and en£ orcement of c o n t r a c t s are j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s . A s s t a t e d by t h e North Dakota Supreme Court: "The P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission h a s no power to c o n s t r u e , e n f o r c e or a d j u d i c a t e t h e v a l i d i t y or e f f e c t of t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e p a r t i e s i n q u e s t i o n e x c e p t as to its e f f e c t upon matters w i t h i n its j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n is dependent upon t h e s t a t u t e s . " W i l l i a m s Elec . C o o p e r a t i v e v. Montana-Dakota U t i l i t i e s Co. ( N . D . 1 9 5 6 ) , 79 N.W.2d 508. The j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e PSC is l i m i t e d to t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f rates and s e r v i c e as provided by t h e Montana s t a t u t e s . S e c t i o n 69-3-101 e t seq., MCA. A l l c o n t r a c t s e n t e r e d i n t o by a p u b l i c u t i l i t y are s u b j e c t t o t h e paramount a u t h o r i t y of t h e state t o e x e r c i s e its r e g u l a t o r y powers. S t a t e v. B i l l i n g s G a s Co. ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 55 Mont. 102, 173 P. 799. In o r d e r to e x e r c i s e its r e g u l a t o r y power t h e PSC must have and does have t h e power to supersede o r modify provisions of c o n t r a c t s made by u t i l i t i e s to t h e e x t e n t t h a t r a t e s and s e r v i c e s a r e a f f e c t e d . S t a t e v. B i l l i n g s Gas Co., supra; City of B i l l i n g s v. Public S e r v i c e Commission (1923), 67 Mont. 29, 214 P. 608. See a l s o P r e s t o n County Light and Power Co. v. Renick (1960), 145 W.Va. 115, 113 S.E.2d 378. A f t e r determining t h a t its j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c o n t r a c t was l i m i t e d , the PSC concluded t h a t t h e City had f a i l e d t o prove t h e e x i s t e n c e of an immediate t h r e a t t o its a b i l i t y t o serve o r t h e e x i s t e n c e of r a t e s t r u c t u r e i n e q u i t i e s . Therefore t h e PSC d e c l i n e d t o i n t e r f e r e with t h e c o n t r a c t . The District Court affirmed t h e PSC o r d e r , f i n d i n g it supported by s u b s t a n t i a l cre- d i b l e evidence. The City argued t h a t its a b i l i t y t o serve its customers was threatened because the District did not have an e x p l i c i t l i m i t on expansion of its boundaries when t h e City was facing s e v e r e water shortages. Testimony a t t h e hearing showed t h a t t h e C i t y had indeed experienced water shortages. However, t h e hearing a l s o showed t h a t t h e City was engaged i n an e x t e n s i v e program t o improve its water s e r v i c e c a p a b i l i t i e s . Upon comple- t i o n of the program, which was expected by 1977, t h e City would have a r a t e d c a p a c i t y of 70,000,000 g a l l o n s per day, an amount double the c a p a c i t y of the City water system p r i o r t o the improvements. O n t h e b a s i s of t h i s evidence, t h e PSC o r d e r No. 4366, dated J u l y 20, 1977, concluded t h a t t h e issue of a t h r e a t posed t o t h e C i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o serve was moot i n view of t h e water p l a n t expansions which eliminated t h e water shortages. There is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h i s finding. The City a l s o argued t h a t t h e "mains" and "volumes" c l a u s e s of t h e 1963 c o n t r a c t posed a t h r e a t t o its a b i l i t y t o s e r v e . The c o n t r a c t provided f o r t h e City t o c o n s t r u c t a 16-inch main t o connect with a 16-inch main b u i l t by t h e District from its r e s e r v o i r t o the C i t y ' s main. The c o n t r a c t provided: " A l l of t h e a f o r e s a i d water mains a r e t o be o p e r a t e d , r e p a i r e d , maintained and, when necessary, replaced o r enlarged by t h e City a t its expense." With r e s p e c t t o volume, t h e c o n t r a c t s t a t e d : "The p a r t i e s understand and a n t i c i p a t e t h a t popula- t i o n and t h e use of water within t h e District w i l l i n c r e a s e i n the years t o come and t h a t t h e r e w i l l be i n c r e a s i n g demands upon the mains described i n sec- t i o n (1) above and the pumping f a c i l i t i e s i n i t i a l l y i n s t a l l e d a s described i n t h i s s e c t i o n . In t h i s regard t h e C i t y a g r e e s t h a t it w i l l a t a l l times f u r n i s h , o p e r a t e and maintain a t its own expense, water transmission mains and pumping f a c i l i t i e s capable of providing water a t a p r e s s u r e and q u a n t i t y s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e demands of t h e District, sub- j e c t only t o the following l i m i t a t i o n s : ( b ) The City r e s e r v e s the r i g h t to restrict. t h e use of water by t h e District i n t h e event a shortage of water makes it necessary t o impose r e s t r i c t i o n s i n use on a l l o t h e r users of City water. However, r e s t r i c t i o n s i n use, i f any, imposed upon t h e D i s t r i c t , s h a l l be no d i f f e r e n t than t h e use r e s t r i c - t i o n s imposed w i t h i n the City of B i l l i n g s . " (Emphasis added. ) The PSC found t h a t t h e City had f a i l e d t o prove any immediate t h r e a t t o its a b i l i t y t o serve. M r . Wright, a c i v i l engineer f o r t h e City, t e s t i f i e d t h a t it was expected t h a t a l a r g e r main would be required by t h e D i s t r i c t i n 1985, M r , Wright a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e "volume" clause provided f o r a doubling of District usage every year. However, no f i g u r e s of a c t u a l increase i n District usage were provided. The testimony was s p e c u l a t i v e and showed no immediate t h r e a t t o the C i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o s e r v e . F i n a l l y , with regard t o the C i t y ' s attempt t o prove r a t e i n e q u i t i e s , t h e PSC found t h a t r a t e i s s u e s were not r a i s e d i n t h e complaint and were not p r o p e r l y a p a r t of t h e proceeding. The PSC determined t h a t it had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o modify t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o r a t e s , b u t t h a t it would review t h e m a t t e r i n a n o t h e r proceeding. See City of B i l l i n g s v. PSC (No. 81-24). The PSC properly excluded the r a t e evidence i n t h i s proceed ing . I n summary, w e hold t h a t t h e PSC has no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e C i t y and t h e D i s t r i c t During t h e e a r l y days of t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission, s e v e r a l cases d e a l i n g w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of PSC power t o e x i s t i n g c o n t r a c t s of p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s were decided. In S t a t e v. B i l l i n g s G a s Co., s u p r a , t h e c i t y g r a n t e d a f r a n c h i s e t o a g a s company, and passed an o r d i n a n c e f i x i n g a maximum rate t o be charged t h e c i t y by t h e g a s company f o r s e r v i c e s . The f r a n c h i s e c o n s t i t u t e d a c o n t r a c t between t h e c i t y and t h e u t i l i t y . When t h e P u b l i c U t i l i t y A c t was p a s s e d , t h e g a s com- pany submitted its rate s c h e d u l e t o t h e PSC and s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f u s e d to reduce t h e rates as r e q u i r e d by t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e c i t y . The c i t y t h e n sought t o compel t h e g a s company t o honor t h e c o n t r a c t . T h i s Court recognized t h e c i t y ' s r i g h t t o c o n t r a c t f o r rates b u t noted t h a t such r i g h t w a s s u b j e c t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e s t a t e to e x e r c i s e its r e g u l a t o r y power. The e f f e c t of t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e s t a t e ' s power was e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s : "Our c o n c l u s i o n is t h a t s i n c e 1913 t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission h a s had e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c - t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t of rate r e g u l a t i o n of t h i s [ u t i l i t y ] company, t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e f r a n c h i s e c o n t r a c t f i x i n g rates were superseded -- b y t h e rates approved by t h e commission, and t h a t t h e remedy of t h e c i t y is by complaint to t h e commission i f t h e rates now i n e f f e c t are e x c e s s i v e . " S t a t e v. B i l l i n g s G a s Co. ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 55 Mont. a t 112, 173 P. a t 801-802. (Emphasis added. ) Thus, when t h e PSC e x e r c i s e s i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r rates charged by a u t i l i t y , t h e rate p r o v i s i o n s are superseded b u t t h e remainder of t h e c o n t r a c t remains i n e f f e c t . See also, C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. PSC ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 67 Mont. 29, 214 P. 608; C i t y o f Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co. ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 99 Mont. 465, 44 W e hold t h a t t h e 1963 c o n t r a c t between t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s and t h e County Water D i s t r i c t of B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s is v a l i d and binding on t h e p a r t i e s under t h e e x i s t i n g circum- s t a n c e s . determine the boundaries of a county water d i s t r i c t and t h a t t h e PSC has a u t h o r i t y t o modify o r supersede a c o n t r a c t between a p u b l i c u t i l i t y and its customer i f t h e c o n t r a c t poses an immediate t h r e a t t o the u t i l i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o serve o r i f the c o n t r a c t a d v e r s e l y af f e c t s the u t i l i t y ' s r a t e s t r u c t u r e . W e f u r t h e r hold t h a t t h e PSC1s conclusion t h a t the City of B i l l i n g s f a i l e d t o prove an immediate t h r e a t t o its s e r v i c e a b i l i t y is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence and was p r o p e r l y af f irmed by t h e District Court. 111. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION The C i t y ' s complaint f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment requested t h e District Court t o decide whether the 1963 c o n t r a c t was v a l i d and binding, and whether the c o n t r a c t may law£ u l l y r e q u i r e the City to: (1) supply water mains of increased s i z e t o meet t h e District's increased needs i n the f u t u r e , ( 2 ) s e r v e any increased D i s t r i c t a r e a without l i m i t a t i o n , ( 3 ) s u b s i d i z e the D i s t r i c t , and ( 4 ) be bound t o a perpetual o b l i g a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t the c o n t r a c t was v a l i d and binding. The City contends t h a t r a t e i n c r e a s e s previ- o u s l y granted by t h e PSC had the e f f e c t of n u l l i f y i n g the c o n t r a c t . The D i s t r i c t Court found otherwise i n its conclu- s i o n s of law a s follows: "The PSC has modified the r a t e provisions of t h e c o n t r a c t by g r a n t i n g t h e City r a t e i n c r e a s e s i n 1972 and 1978, t h e percentage of which was n o t uniform with r e s p e c t t o the D i s t r i c t and the C i t y ' s o t h e r customers. Those i n c r e a s e s granted t h e City were s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r i n percen- t a g e f o r the D i s t r i c t than f o r some of t h e o t h e r customers of t h e City. However, t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e s e r a t e i n c r e a s e s d i d n o t i n v a l i d a t e o r - -- n u l l i f y t h e c o n t r a c t . The o n l y impact of t& o r d e r s granting those i n c r e a s e s was t o modify t h e r a t e provision of t h e c o n t r a c t . " (Emphasis added. ) W e agree t h a t the e x e r c i s e of the r e g u l a t o r y power of t h e PSC w i t h r e s p e c t t o r a t e s did not n u l l i f y t h e c o n t r a c t between The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t t h e 1963 c o n t r a c t was p e r p e t u a l and t h a t it could not be terminated without t h e c o n s e n t of both p a r t i e s . The c o u r t based its c o n c l u s i o n on t h e c o n t r a c t language o b l i g a t i n g t h e C i t y " a t a l l times" t o f u r n i s h s u f f i c i e n t water t o meet t h e demands of t h e D i s t r i c t , s u b j e c t t o t h e volume l i m i t a t i o n s set f o r t h above. The o n l y p r o v i s i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t contemplating t e r m i n a t i o n is a s f o l l o w s : " I n t h e e v e n t t h e District e v e r becomes an i n c o r p o r a t e d c i t y o r town with its own mayor and c o u n c i l or commission form of government, t h e C i t y ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o provide w a t e r t o t h e D i s t r i c t s h a l l c e a s e and t e r m i n a t e ." The C i t y contends t h a t B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s w i l l never become i n c o r p o r a t e d because of s e c t i o n 7-2-4103 ( 2 ) , MCA, r e s t r i c t i n g t h e forming of a municipal c o r p o r a t i o n u n l e s s t h e boundary t h e r e o f is more t h a n t h r e e miles from t h e boundary of an e x i s t i n g town, which is n o t t h e c a s e w i t h B i l l i n g s and t h e H e i g h t s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e C i t y a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t is p e r p e t u a l , and t h a t p e r p e t u a l c o n t r a c t s w i t h a m u n i c i p a l i t y a r e e i t h e r u n e n f o r c e a b l e , t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l of e i t h e r p a r t y upon n o t i c e , or s u b j e c t t o a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e l i m i t . A s d i s c u s s e d above, t h e purpose of t h e Montana ~ e c l a r a - t o r y Judgment A c t , s e c t i o n s 27-8-101 e t seq., MCA, is t o a l l o w t h e p a r t i e s to o b t a i n r e s o l u t i o n of i s s u e s a r i s i n g from an e x i s t i n g c o n t r o v e r s y . I s s u e s which a r e s p e c u l a t i v e or which a r e unnecessary to t h e r e s o l u t i o n of an e x i s t i n g c o n t r o v e r s y cannot be decided a s w e cannot a n t i c i p a t e a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s which may a r i s e i n t h e f u t u r e . W e conclude t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t is p e r p e t u a l was unnecessary t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h i s d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n . T h i s m a t t e r a r o s e when t h e D i s t r i c t expanded its boun- d a r i e s with t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e C i t y would honor its c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n to supply s u f f i c i e n t water t o meet t h e r e s u l t i n g i n c r e a s e i n demand. The C i t y contended t h a t its o b l i g a t i o n was l i m i t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l 1963 b o u n d a r i e s of t h e D i s t r i c t . The C i t y h a s admitted t h a t it is w i l l i n g t o c o n t i n u e t o sell water to t h e D i s t r i c t provided t h a t t h e C i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o s e r v e its o t h e r customers is not a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d . The C i t y ' s major concern is t h a t i f t h e c o n t r a c t is p e r p e t u a l and i f t h e District can c o n t i n u e to expand with- o u t c o n s u l t i n g t h e C i t y , t h e n t h e C i t y ' s a b i l i t y to s e r v e its o t h e r customers might be impaired. Not o n l y is t h i s argument s p e c u l a t i v e , b u t a l s o it f a i l s t o t a k e i n t o account t h e power o f t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission to modify o r s u p e r s e d e t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e C i t y ' s f e a r s should prove to b e j u s t i f i e d i n t h e f u t u r e . Under t h e e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , however, t h e C i t y f a i l e d to prove an immediate t h r e a t to its a b i l i t y to s e r v e its customers. Moreover, we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e language of t h e con- t r a c t compels t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g i v e n it by t h e District C o u r t . Where a c o n t r a c t is n o t e x p r e s s l y made p e r p e t u a l by its terms, c o n s t r u c t i o n of such c o n t r a c t as p e r p e t u a l is d i s f a v o r e d . S o u t h e r n B e l l T & T Co. v. F l o r i d a E a s t Coast Ry. Co. ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 8 ) , 399 F.2d 854; West Caldwell v. Caldwell ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 26 N . J . 9, 138 A.2d 402; 1 W i l l i s t o n , C o n t r a c t s 112 838 (3rd Ed. 1 9 5 7 ) . In a case where a c i t y donated w a t e r s e r v i c e t o a u n i v e r s i t y i n o r d e r t o induce t h e u n i v e r s i t y to locate w i t h i n t h e c i t y , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d : " W e do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n s i d e r e d as a whole w a r r a n t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e o b l i g a t i o n was t o e x i s t p e r p e t u a l l y , or f o r e v e r . The t i m e was t o be measured by t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e u n i v e r s i t y i n G a i n e s v i l l e . W e t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e l o c a t i o n as permanent b u t we do n o t i n d u l g e t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e t h a t it w i l l be p e r p e t u a l . Herculaneum and Pompeii were per- manent b u t h i s t o r y r e c o r d s t h a t t h e y were not p e r p e t u a l . " C i t y of G a i n e s v i l l e v. Bd. of C o n t r o l ( F l a . 1 9 5 5 ) , 8 1 So.2d 514, 518. The c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n i n t h e e v e n t of t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e H e i g h t s as a c i t y , an e v e n t which could c o n c e i v a b l y o c c u r i f s e c t i o n 7-2-4103 ( 2 ) , MCA, were r e p e a l e d . W e i n t e r p r e t t h e p h r a s e " a t a l l times" to mean " a t a l l times d u r i n g t h e l i f e of t h i s c o n t r a c t . " The l i f e of t h e c o n t r a c t is i n d e f i n i t e and may be t e r m i n a t e d by t h e PSC i f it f i n d s s u c h a c t i o n n e c e s s a r y and w i t h i n its j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r rates and s e r v i c e . The C i t y n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r - i n g t h e C i t y to m a i n t a i n and, i f n e c e s s a r y , e n l a r g e t h e 16- i n c h mains is i n v a l i d because it r e q u i r e s t h e C i t y to s u b s i - d i z e t h e District and to s u p p l y u n l i m i t e d q u a n t i t i e s of water. W e see no merit i n t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s . The PSC h a s t h e power t o i n t e r v e n e should it d e t e r m i n e t h a t rate i n e q u i t i e s are p r e s e n t . S u b s i d i z a t i o n h a s n o t o c c u r r e d to d a t e , and should it o c c u r i n t h e f u t u r e , t h e m a t t e r is s u b j e c t to a s e p a r a t e rate p r o c e e d i n g . The c o n t r a c t does c o n t a i n a l i m i t a t i o n c l a u s e c o n t r o l l i n g t h e allowable i n c r e a s e of use by t h e D i s t r i c t . The PSC h a s power to i n t e r v e n e i f t h e C i t y is unable to s e r v e its o t h e r customers, b u t t h e C i t y h a s as y e t f a i l e d to prove a n y immediate t h r e a t . While t h e C i t y would n o t be f o r c e d to m a i n t a i n equipment l y i n g o u t s i d e of its b o u n d a r i e s , it may c o n t r a c t to do so, Crawford v. C i t y of B i l l i n g s ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 130 Mont. 158, 297 P.2d 292, and it h a s f r e e l y c o n t r a c t e d to m a i n t a i n and e n l a r g e t h e water mains w i t h t h e knowledge of t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e District's needs would i n c r e a s e i n t h e f u t u r e . F i n a l l y , t h e C i t y a s k s t h e Court t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e C i t y ' s o b l i g a t i o n is l i m i t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l 1963 b o u n d a r i e s of t h e D i s t r i c t . The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t w a s n o t ambiguous, t h a t it c o n t a i n e d no l i m i t a t i o n on t h e area o f t h e D i s t r i c t , t h a t t h e c o u r t was w i t h o u t power t o i n s e r t such a p r o v i s i o n , and t h a t n e i t h e r t h e C i t y n o r t h e PSC had a u t h o r i t y t o f i x t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e D i s t r i c t . W e a g r e e . The c o n t r a c t r e q u i r e s t h e C i t y to s u p p l y s u f f i c i e n t water t o meet t h e demands of t h e District, s u b j e c t t o t h e volume l i m i - t a t i o n s c l a u s e . While t h e C i t y may be disenchanted w i t h t h e con- t r a c t , a c o u r t cannot i n s e r t p r o v i s i o n s or l i m i t a t i o n s i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t . Danielson v. Danielson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 55, 560 P.2d 893. The p a r t i e s c l e a r l y e n v i s i o n e d i n c r e a s e s i n usage of w a t e r by t h e D i s t r i c t . F u r t h e r , t h e C i t y c o n t r a c t e d w i t h an e n t i t y , t h e County Water D i s t r i c t of B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s , which even a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t had t h e power under Montana l a w t o i n c r e a s e its b o u n d a r i e s . P a r t i e s to a c o n t r a c t are pre- sumed to be aware of e x i s t i n g laws which a f f e c t t h e c o n t r a c t a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n . Moses v. School D i s t . No. 53 o f L i n c o l n County ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 1 0 7 Mont. 300, 86 P.2d 407; S n i d e r v. Yarbrough ( 1 9 1 1 ) , 43 Mont. 203, 1 1 5 P. 411. The judgment of t h e District Court is modified to remove t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t is p e r p e t u a l and, as s o m d i - f i e d , is af f irmed. . ................................. Chief J u s t i c e -- "---.-- D i s t . Judge, s i t t i n g J o h n C. Sheehy R o b e r t M. Holter, D i s t . Judge, s i t t i n g o f M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea