Boise City, Idaho v. Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co.
Citation | 186 F. 705 |
Decision Date | 06 February 1911 |
Docket Number | 1,875. |
Parties | BOISE CITY, IDAHO, v. BOISE ARTESIAN HOT & COLD WATER CO., Limited. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the court below, where it brought the action to recover from the defendant certain license fees imposed by one of its ordinances, enacted in 1906. The facts of the case are undisputed. They show, among other things, that the plaintiff in error is a municipal corporation operating under a special charter granted by the Legislature of the territory of Idaho during the year 1863 and subsequent amendments thereto; that on the 3d day of October, 1889, the city enacted an ordinance entitled 'An ordinance granting Eastman Brothers the right to lay water pipes in Boise City,' the only two sections of which ordinance are as follows:
'Section 1. H. B. Eastman and B. M. Eastman, and their successors in interest in their waterworks for the supplying of mountain water to the residents of Boise City, are hereby authorized to lay and repair their water pipes in, through, and along and across the streets and alleys of Boise City, under the surface thereof; but they shall at all times restore and leave all streets and alleys in, through, along, and across which they may lay such pipes, in as good condition as they shall find the same, and shall at all times promptly repair all damage done by them or their pipes, or by water escaping therefrom.
Approved 'October 3, 1889.
The Artesian Water & Land Improvement Company having become organized as a corporation under the laws of the state of Idaho for the purpose of supplying Boise City and its inhabitants with water for public and family use, the city on the 10th day of July, 1890, enacted an ordinance entitled 'An ordinance granting to the Artesian Water & Land Improvement Company the right to lay water pipes in Boise City,' the three sections of which are as follows:
Immediately after the enactment of the ordinance in their favor, Eastman Bros. proceeded to construct a system of waterworks, consisting of artesian wells and reservoirs, and laid mains and pipes under and along the streets and alleys of Boise City, and to supply the city and its inhabitants with pure mountain water, in accordance with that ordinance, expending in such construction over $20,000 to the time they sold their interest therein to an Idaho corporation called the Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, Limited, hereinafter mentioned.
Immediately after the enactment of the ordinance in favor of the Artesian Water & Land Improvement Company, it proceeded to sink artesian wells, construct reservoirs, and lay pipes under and along the streets of the city and to supply the city and its inhabitants with pure, fresh water for municipal, domestic, and irrigation purposes, under and pursuant to the aforesaid ordinance in its favor, expending in the construction, extension, and improvement of its waterworks more than $50,000 up to the time of its sale thereof to the aforesaid Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, Limited, as hereinafter mentioned.
The Artesian Hot & Cold water Company, Limited, was organized under the laws of the state of Idaho, and was authorized by its articles of incorporation to supply the plaintiff in error and its inhabitants with water for municipal and domestic uses, and to purchase and acquire the waterworks, wells, reservoirs, pipe lines, properties, rights, and franchises of both the Eastman Bros., and the Artesian Water & Land Improvement Company, which purchase was effected on the 28th day of March, 1891.
The defendant in error is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of West Virginia, with its principal place of business at Boise City, Ada county, Idaho. Its articles of incorporation authorize it to carry on 'a waterworks system, and to sell and rent water to the inhabitants of the said Boise City and to take, purchase, acquire, hold, operate, and maintain rights and privileges of water companies, associations, or corporations, and to acquire, use, own, and operate all properties, franchises, rights, claims, privileges, and everything belonging to that certain corporation known as the Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, Limited, and to be the successor in every respect of said corporation.'
On the 28th day of August, 1901, the defendant in error acquired by purchase from the Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, Limited, all of its rights in and to both of the water systems mentioned, and all of its said waters, as well as all of the rights and privileges granted by the aforesaid ordinances.
The record further shows: That between the 28th day of March, 1891, and the 28th day of August, 1901, the Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, Limited, supplied the city and its inhabitants with pure, fresh water for municipal, domestic, and other useful purposes, and that during that period the population of the city increased from about 3,000 to about 6,000 people, the area of the city being enlarged by the laying out and platting of additions thereto, which were settled upon and occupied, and during which period the Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, with the city's knowledge and consent, extended its pipe lines under the streets and alleys of the city from time to time, and supplied such additions with water to meet the demands upon it, and laid about 15 miles of additional pipe, constructed two wells and one reservoir for cold water, and erected a large steam pumping plant with a
capacity of 3,000,000 gallons a day, aggregating in cost more than $192,000. That at all times since the 28th day of August, 1901, the defendant in error has supplied the city and its inhabitants
On the 7th day of June, 1906, the plaintiff in error enacted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
...were addressed solely to the good judgment of the members of the common council. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. Section 95. In Boise City v. Boise Water Co., 186 F. 705, C.C.A. 523,) the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit said: In effect the provisions of that ordinance were precisely simila......
-
Bradbury v. City of Idaho Falls
... ... plant and a water supply and to construct, enlarge, extend, ... repair, ... of Savanna v. Robinson, 81 Ill.App. 471; Boise City ... v. Boise Artesian H. & C. Water Co., 186 F. 705, ... ...
-
Osier v. Consumers' Co.
...239 P. 735 41 Idaho 268 DELVINA OSIER and JOHN OSIER, Her Husband, ... CONSUMERS' COMPANY, a Corporation, and the CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, a Municipal Corporation, ... the sidewalk area does not excuse a water company from its ... negligent instalation or ... for the jury. (Donovan v. Boise City, 31 Idaho 324, ... 325, 171 P. 670; Tucker ... implication." (Boise City v. Boise Artesian H. & C ... W. Co., 186 F. 705, 108 C. C. A ... ...
-
The State ex inf. Chaney v. West Missouri Power Company
... ... Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547; ... San Lino Water Co. v. Estrada, 117 Cal. 168; ... State v ... grant by a third-class city of an electric franchise without ... Co. v. City of Logansport, 114 F. 688; Boise City ... Waterworks Co. v. Boise City, 123 F ... Mulholland, 159 Mo. 86; ... Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U.S. 84; ... ...