Court Opinion

ID: 6904766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:58:43.410696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:18.306455
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
1. It is contended that, construing together the parts of the municipal enactment referred to, the defendant, as the successor in interest of the grantee of the franchise, had the right to install and use electric meters, subject, however, to the limitation that the rate to be charged for electric energy should not exceed the sum prescribed by the enactment, and that in denying an exercise of the privilege granted an error was committed. The provisions of the ordinance having been accepted and acted upon by the grantee of the franchise and its successor,- the enactment became an exe*405cuted contract which cannot be altered without the consent of both parties: 8 Cyc. 950; McQuillin, Mun. Corp., § 1165; Detroit v. Detroit St. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368 (46 L. Ed. 592, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 410).
2. The provisions of an ordinance, when treated as a contract, are not to be construed as the clauses of a municipal charter, but, like any other agreement, such an interpretation is to be adopted as will determine the intention of the parties from the language they have employed: McQuillin, Mun. Corp., § 811; McQuillin Mun. Ord., § 290; Savage-Scoffield Co. v. City of Tacoma, 56 Wash. 457 (105 Pac. 1032). When two interpretations of a municipal ordinance, treated as a contract, are permissible, that construction which is most favorable to the public should be adopted: McQuillin, Mun. Ord., § 290. The cases cited to support the text, which appears under the topic, “when the ordinance is to be treated as a contract,” are Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587 (45 L. Ed. 679, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493), Danville Water Co. v. Danville, 180 U. S. 619 (45 L. Ed. 696, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 505), and Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus, 180 U. S. 624 (45 L. Ed. 702, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490). In each of these cases a statute of Illinois authorizing municipal corporations to supply water for public use was construed. In the first case, the ruling in which was followed in the others, it was held that the power granted by the statute could, without exertion, be construed as distributive; that a city council was authorized to contract for the construction and maintenance of waterworks, at such rates as might be fixed by ordinance and for a period not exceeding 30 years; that the words “fixed by ordinance” might be construed to mean by ordinance once for all to endure during the whole period of 30 years, or by ordinance *406from time to time as might he deemed necessary; and that, of the two constructions, that should be adopted which was most favorable to the public, not that one which would so tie the hands of the council that the rates could not be adjusted as justice to both parties might re- 're at a particular time. It. will thus be seen that, while the provisions of ordinances were considered in the cases referred to, it was in fact the language of a statute, granting power, equivalent to clauses of a municipal charter enacted for the same purpose, that was interpreted.
3. The rule governing cases of this kind should be that where a municipal ordinance, which is treated as a contract, is fairly susceptible to two constructions, that interpretation should be adopted which is most favorable to the public. An examination of the language of Section 10 of the ordinance in question, in order to determine the intention of the contracting parties, would seem to induce the construction that the clauses hereinbefore quoted, when read together, were not subject to two constructions. In the first part of the section, though a flat, rate for the use of electric lights for 30 years is provided for, it is thereafter stipulated that, if meters be installed, the rate for the electric energy thus consumed shall not exceed a specified sum per thousand watt hours. Had the contract, evidenced by the ordinance, been assented to by private parties, no doubt would be entertained that the grantee of the right was given the privilege to change, at pleasure, the method of determining the compensation to be paid for the electricity used, subject, however, to the limitation that the meter rate should not exceed the sum per month specified. The privilege of adopting a meter rate was evidently not inserted in the ordinance to enable the. parties sub*407sequently to conclude an agreement to that effect. Such a clause was wholly unnecessary for that purpose, since every contract, except possibly that of marriage, can be altered or annulled by mutual consent of the parties.
It is believed that no doubt can reasonably exist, when the entire ordinance is considered, that a privilege was conferred by the municipal enactment upon the grantee of the franchise, its successors or assigns, to change at pleasure the rate from a flat to a meter basis, and that an error was committed in granting the relief awarded.
Issues were made by the pleadings respecting charges for rent of meters and exactions of a sum of money for installing them, which latter payment was to be returned when the use of the electricity was discontinued. The facts as stipulated do not refer to these disputed questions, and for that reason the averments of the complaint in these particulars will be treated as unsubstantiated.
For the error referred to, the decree should be reversed and the suit dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Reversed and Dismissed.
Mr. Justice Benson took no part in the consideration of this cause.