Johnson v. Carolina Gas & Electric Co
| Decision Date | 08 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9591.) |
| Citation | 91 S.E. 734 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. CAROLINA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marion County; S. W. G. Shipp, Judge.
Application for mandamus by James W. Johnson against the Carolina Gas & Electric Company. From an order granting the writ, respondent appeals. Order affirmed.
Willcox & Willcox, of Florence, Geo. E. Dargan, of Darlington, and A. F. Woods, of Marion, for appellant.
L. D. Lide and H. S. McCandlish, both of Marion, for respondent.
On the 15th day of June, 1916, the respondent cut off the relator's light and water from his residence and office building, on account of arrears of water rent, for the office building, for the months February, March, and April, 1916. During those months the plant was operated by the Carolina Central Electric Company. The relator applied to his honor, Judge Shipp, for a writ of mandamus to require the restoration of the service. The writ was granted, and from this order this appeal was taken.
There are nine exceptions, but the appellant does not argue them separately, and we will not consider them separately.
In the view this court takes of this case, there is only one question, to wit: Can the respondent discontinue the service, even if there was a debt due for water, supplied at a previous time, and that supplied by another company?
The case of Benson v. Water Co., 88 S. C. on page 354, 70 S. E. on page 897, answers the question. Quoting from Poole v. Water Co., 81 S. C. 438, 62 S. E. 874, 128 Am. St Rep. 923, we find:
" 'While a public service water company has the right to cut off a consumer's water supply for nonpayment of recent and just bills for water rent, ' etc. * * * We agree with the circuit judge that the water company cannot be allowed to refuse to furnish water under the contract of December 1, 1909, even if there was adebt due for water supplied at a previous time and a different place."
The appellant cites from the franchise as its authority:
"Upon the failure or refusal of any consumer to comply with the foregoing provisions, or any reasonable rule or regulation of the said A. N. Walker, his heirs and assigns, and upon the failure of any customer to settle any hill when due, service may be discontinued and the amount of deposit returned to such customer after deducting all his bills due."
The service was discontinued here for past-due bills, under a contract made with another concern, and assigned to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huff v. Electric Plant Bd. of Monticello
...rule very narrowly on the ground that such a drastic remedy should be very strictly confined. Huff relies upon Johnson v. Carolina Gas & Electric Co., 106 S.C. 447, 91 S.E. 734, as authority for the position that the city wrongfully disconnected him from current under the circumstances. Thi......
- Camden Wholesale Grocery v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.