City of Pocatello v. Murray
Decision Date | 03 May 1909 |
Citation | 173 F. 382 |
Parties | CITY OF POCATELLO v. MURRAY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
W. H Witty and H. V. A. Ferguson, for plaintiff.
D Worth Clark, for defendant.
The questions arising upon the demurrer to the bill have been ably argued by counsel for the respective parties, and have been fully considered by me. In order to clearly understand the questions involved, it is only necessary to say that the bill of complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant is the owner, and in possession, of a system of waterworks in the city of Pocatello, under franchise granted to him by that city on June 1, 1901, by a certain ordinance numbered 86, alleged to be in full force and effect, and set out in the bill. This ordinance recites that the supply of water furnished the city--
' * * * is deemed inadequate for the present and future need of said city, and said James A. Murray agrees to bring in the waters of Mink creek and to make all extensions of street mains warranted by the growth of said city, thereby necessitating the laying of several miles of pipe, at a large additional expenditure of money; and
'Whereas said James A. Murray, before incurring so great an additional outlay, as a condition precedent to the expense of laying said pipe line, desires to be protected against unreasonable or arbitrary changes in the rates and charges for water and water service, and asks some reasonable assurance that such unreasonable or arbitrary changes shall not be made; and
'Whereas the demand of said James A. Murray is considered reasonable and just, and it is deemed to be for the best interest of the city of Pocatello to extend and give the assurance asked for'-- and then proceeds to name a schedule of water rates which the defendant was authorized to charge for a period of five years. The ordinance then further provides:
The five-year period for which rates and charges were fixed by section 3 of the ordinance expired on June 6, 1906, and the bill alleges:
'That said schedule of rates and charges has ceased to be reasonable and proper, and is no longer a just measure of the amounts that ought to be paid by the plaintiff and the inhabitants thereof for water furnished to them under said franchise, in view of the growth and expansion of said city and the inferior and unsatisfactory water service furnished by said defendant, and that said rates are now excessive, extortionate, and oppressive in each and every instance.'
It is also alleged that, under an act of the Legislature of Idaho approved March 16, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 555), entitled 'An act to amend section 2711 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Pocatello v. Murray
...are a substantial part of that contract, and are for that reason not affected by the subsequent statute of March 16, 1907." (Pocatello v. Murray, 173 F. 382; Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City, 62 F. 853, 10 C. C. A. 653, 27 L. R. A. 827; Santa Ana Water Co. v. San Buenaventura, 56 F. 339; Los A......
- Sirocco Engineering Co. v. B.F. Sturtevant Co.