Court Opinion

ID: 9808285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:32:46.455626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:42.991321
License: Public Domain

*541Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: Tbe commissioners of Oxford made a contract with the defendant company to furnish water and lights to said town and its citizens. The contract was in the shape of an ordinance which was submitted to the voters at the ballot box and approved by them. This ordinance specified the rates, both flat and meter, in separate columns, at which the defendant should furnish both light and water. This table of rates was not intended to confer any option upon the defendant, but was a restriction upon the defendant company and a guarantee to the town and the citizens that they would be furnished lights and water at prices not exceeding those rates, and by the flat or meter system at the option of the consumer.
The ordinance and the. table were not required to confer any option upon the defendant. Without them, the company had full choice whether it would furnish upon a light or flat meter' rate, and as to the price it would charge. It was not to confer an option upon the company, but for the exactly opposite purpose of restricting the powers of a monopoly, and to confer upon the consumer the option that the ordinance was adopted.
This will more clearly appear by reference to the provision as to the water rate, which specifically provides that upon the expiration of any contract with a citizen as to the furnishing of water upon a flat rate, the company should have the right to substitute a meter rate. There is no provision reserving such right to the company to substitute a meter rate for a flat rate in furnishing lights.
It is true that the flat rate for lights was based upon a twelve-hour service. Of course, the plaintiff cannot require a longer service upon a flat rate than that which existed at the date of the adoption of the ordinance, and it seems that the plaintiff does not claim it. In my judgment, the Court below should have adopted in all respects the report of Gov. Stedman, the very careful and able referee in this case.