Spring Valley v. Schottler
Decision Date | 04 February 1884 |
Docket Number | WATER-WORKS |
Citation | 110 U.S. 347,28 L.Ed. 173,4 S.Ct. 48 |
Parties | SPRING VALLEY v. SCHOTTLER and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Chas. N. Fox, Francis G. Newlands, Geo. F. Edmunds, and Richard Crowley, for plaintiffs in error.
A. L. Rhodes and Alfred Barston, for defendant in error.
Article 4, § 31, of the constitution of California, adopted in 1849, is as follows:
Acts were passed by the legislature under this authority on the fourteenth of April, 1853, and the thirtieth of April, 1855, providing for the formation of corporations for certain purposes, and on the twenty-second of April, 1858, these acts were extended so as to include the formation of corporations for the purpose of supplying cities, counties, and towns with water. Under this exten- sion water companies were empowered to acquire lands and waters for their works by purchase and condemnation, and, subject to the reasonable direction of the public authorities, to use streets, ways, alleys, and public roads for laying their pipes, but it was expressly provided, by an amendment enacted in 1861, 'that all canals, reservoirs, ditches, pipes, aqueducts, and all conduits * * * shall be used exclusively for the purpose of supplying any city or county, or any cities or towns, in this state, or the inhabitants thereof, with pure, fresh water.'
Section 4 is as follows:
The Spring Valley Water-works Company was formed under this act on the nineteenth of June, 1858, and since that time has expended a very large amount of money in the erection of extensive and substantial works for the supply of the city and county of San Francisco with water. In January, 1878, the board of supervisors of the city and county appointed Isaac B. Friedlander and H. B. Williams, and the company appointed W. F. Babcock and Charles Webb Howard, and these four afterwards appointed Jerome Lincoln, to constitute a board of commissioners to determine, under the provisions of section 4, the rates to be charged by the company for water. This board met and fixed a tariff of rates to go into effect on the first of June 1878. In July of the same year, Friedlander, one of the commissioners appointed by the supervisors, died. By his death a vacancy was created in the board which has never been filled.
In 1879 the people of California adopted a new constitution, which went into effect on the first of January, 1880. Article 14, §§ 1, 2, of this constitution, are as follows:
'Water and Water Rights.
Under this provision of the constitution, and the legislation based thereon, the board of supervisors claim the right and power to fix the rates to be charged by the company for water, and refuse to appoint a member to fill the vacancy in the board of commissioners occasioned by the death of the former incumbent. This suit was begun in the supreme court of the state for a writ of mandamus, requiring the board of supervisors to take action in the matter and fill the vacancy. The court, on final hearing, refused the writ and dismissed the petition. This writ of error was brought by the company to review that judgment.
The general question involved in this case is whether water companies in California, formed under the act of 1858, before the adoption of the constitution of 1879, have a right which the state is prohibited by the constitution of the United States from impairing or taking away, to charge their customers such prices for water as may from time to time be fixed by a commission made up of two persons selected by the company, two by the public authorities of the locality, and, if need be, a fifth selected by the other four, or by the sheriff of the county. The Spring Valley Company claims no rights of this character that may not also be claimed by every other company formed under the same act. That the companies must sell at reasonable prices all the water they are able to furnish consumers, and that the prices fixed for the time being by the honest judgment of such a commission as was specially provided for in the act, must be deemed reasonable, both by the company and the public, is not denied. The dispute is as to the power of the state, under the prohibitions of the constitution of the United States, to substitute for this commission another, selected without the co-operation of the company, or some other tribunal of a different character, like the municipal authorities of the locality. The Spring Valley Company claims that it has, under its charter, a right to the maintenance of the commission which was created by the requisite appointments in 1878, and the object of this suit is to compel the board of supervisors to perpetuate that commission by filling the vacancy that exists in its membership. So that the whole controversy here is as to the right of water companies that availed themselves of the privileges of the act of 1858 to secure a virtual monopoly of trade in water at a particular place, to demand the appointment of the commission provided for in that act, notwithstanding the constitution of 1879 and the legislation under it.
The Spring Valley Company is an artificial being, created by or under the authority of the legislature of California. The people of the state, when they first established their government, provided in express terms that corporations, other than for municipal purposes, should not be formed except under general laws, subject at all times to alteration or repeal. The reservation of power to alter or repeal the charters of corporations was not new, for almost immediately after the judgment of this court in the Dartmouth College Case, (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518,) the states, many of them, in granting charters, acted on the suggestion of Mr. Justice STORY in his concurring opinion (page 712) and inserted provisions by which such authority was expressly retained. Even before this decision it was intimated by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, in Wales v. Stetson, 2 Mass. 143, that such a reservation would save to the state its power of control. In California the constitution put this reservation into every charter, and consequently this company was from the moment of its creation subject to the legislative power of alteration, and, if deemed expedient, of absolute extinguishment as a corporate body.
Water for domestic uses was difficult to be got in some parts of the state. Large amounts of money were needed to secure a sufficient supply for the inhabitants in many localities, and as a means of combining capital for such purposes the act of 1858 was passed. Other statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spring Val. Water Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
... 165 F. 667 SPRING VALLEY WATER CO. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. United States Circuit Court, N.D. California. October 7, 1908 ... [165 F. 668] ... the principle that no man shall be a judge in his own cause, ... the Supreme Court in Spring Valley Waterworks v ... Schottler, 110 U.S. 347, 354, 4 Sup.Ct. 48, 51, 28 L.Ed ... 173, held that the municipal authorities had the power to ... regulate the prices at which the ... ...
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission
... ... legislature abused its power was not destined to stand. Seven ... years later in Spring Valley Water-Works v ... Schottler , 110 U.S. 347, 354, 4 S.Ct. 48, 51, 28 ... L.Ed. 173, the ... ...
-
Wilmington City Railway Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Springs Railway Co.
... ... Miller vs. State, 15 Wall. 478, 488; Holyoke vs ... Lynam, 15 Wall. 500; Spring Valley Water Works vs ... Shotteer, 110 U.S. 347, 352; Maine Central R. R. Co ... vs. Main, ... reserved power of revocation by the legislature." In the ... case of Waterworks vs. Schottler , 110 U.S. 347, 4 ... S.Ct. 48, 28 L.Ed. 173, Chief Justice Waite, discussing the ... [46 A. 15] ... ...
-
Brooks v. State
...v. Freight Co., 105 U.S. 17; Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 361 (365); Close v. Glenwood, etc., Co., 107 U.S. 476; Spring Valley Water Works v. Shottler, 110 U.S. 353; Hamilton Gas Light Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U.S. New York, etc., Co. v. Bristol, 151 U.S. 567; Pennsylvania College Cases, 13......
-
Three cases/four tales: commons, capture, the public trust, and property in land.
...of pigeons, which numbered in the billions in the 1870s and only the dozens by the 1890s). (55) Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 110 U.S. 347, 374 (Field, J., dissenting) (1884) (quoting Atchison v. Peterson, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 507, 512 (1874) (Field, J.)). See generally Dale D. Gobl......
-
The pioneer spirit and the public trust: the American rule of capture and state ownership of wildlife.
...supra note 33, at 52. (74) 2 JAMES KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 256 (1st ed., 1826). (75) Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 110 U.S. 347, 374 (1884) (Field, J., (76) See supra notes 69-73 and accompanying text. (77) For commentary asserting that early American citizens and courts......
-
CHAPTER 1
...which in every case used tangible property devoted to a public use. Some of them had a monopoly. Spring Valley Water-Works v. Schottler, 110 U.S. 347, 354 (1884). Some of them had franchises. Most of them used public ways or employed property which they had acquired by virtue of the power o......
-
Coal Price Regulation and the Constitution
...In particular things; in two, the statutes Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler in question regulated the price of labor (110 U. S. 347), a case decided in in particular industries. In one case it was held-one judge dissenting- the Court dealt with an act of Congress; that Government can ......