Court Opinion

ID: 9417837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:40:54.812404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:51.450925
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Beewee, Me. Justice Beown and Me. Justice Peckham,
dissenting.
It will be seen from the opinion of the court that, this case differs in no material particular from that of the Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City, just decided. Under the sanction of the same statutes considered in the Freeport case, the defendant in error, the city of Danville, contracted with the plaintiff in error, the water company, for the period authorized by the statute, and stipulated as to the rates to be paid for a public *624water supply. These rates were, adhered to until, under the authority of the statute of the State of Illinois passed in 1891, referred to in the opinion in the Freeport case, the defendant in error reduced the rates below the contract price. It now asserts in this record that it possessed the power to. do so.
For the reasons stated by me for dissenting from the opinion and decree in the Freeport case, I dissent from the opinion and decree in the present case.