Court Opinion

ID: 8780966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 13:18:20.709296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:50.058385
License: Public Domain

MORROW, Circuit Judge.
This is a motion for an injunction pendente lite.
The action was commenced by the complainant to restrain the de-. fendants from enforcing certain water rates established by the boards of supervisors of Stanislaus, Merced, and Fresno counties after Case No. 14,554, 191 Fed. 875, just decided, had been submitted. The rates in the present case took effect on the 1st day of July, 1911. The motion is submitted upon the bill of complaint and answer, and upon the evidence taken in case No. 14,554.
In the present case it appears that the master’s report in the former case was submitted to the boards of supervisors for their consideration, and that they fixed the new rates upon the basis of the master’s findings as to the value of complainant’s property $896,829.55, adding thereto $60,000 as the value of complainant’s franchise, making a total of $956,829.55.
The rates fixed by the boards of supervisors in the present case differ somewhat from the rates fixed in the former case for a like service:
1907. 1911.
Per aere, per annum. Per acre, per annum.
$ .85 $1.25 Fresno County...,
1.55 1.75 Merced County...,
. 1.50 2.00 Stanislaus County,
*899It appears in the present case that the total acreage of agricultural lands to be irrigated and the rates to he charged, and the income therefrom, would he as follows :
Fresno County................36,706 acres at $1.25..............$15,822.50
Merced County...............47,836 “ “ 1.75.............. 83,713.00
Stanislaus County............11,527 “ “ 2.00.............. 23,054.00
Total...................97,060 acres $152,485.50
Estimated cost for maintenance in former case applied in this case 77,104.00
Net income...............................................$ 75,485.50
If the complainant should receive this net income from the increased rates upon the acreage as here stated, it would be in excess of the net income found in the former case, and for the reasons there stated will be in excess of the minimum income allowed by the statute.
It follows that the bill of complaint does not state a cause of action, and the application for an injunction pendente lite must be denied.