Barr v. City Council of Augusta
| Decision Date | 10 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 17014,17014 |
| Citation | 206 Ga. 753,58 S.E.2d 823 |
| Parties | BARR et al. v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
The plaintiffs in Barr v. City Council of Augusta, Ga.Sup., 58 S.E.2d 820, filed another action on the same date against the City Council of Augusta. In so far as germane to the questions insisted upon in this court, the plaintiffs alleged: The defendant operates a municipal water works, through which it has served its citizens and persons living in the environs of the city. The plaintiffs live in that portion of the county which lies wholly without the corporate limits of the city. The water main through which the defendant furnishes the plaintiffs with water was conveyed to the defendant by John P. Mulherin without cost. The defendant has no authority to make a charge for water whereby a net profit will result. The defendant conducts a public utility and occupies the status of a public-service corporation. The only charge that can legally be made by the defendant is the amount necessary to pay operating expenses, plus an amount for depreciation of the water works, and for the payment of interest and retirement of bonds. In the year 1948 the defendant received a large stated sum in excess of disbursements. The defendant owes stated amount of unretired bonds and revenue certificates. In the year 1949 there will be a substantial change in the cost of operation of water works and the amount required for the payment of interest on bonds. The charge made in 1948 was greatly in excess of that authorized by law. On March 7, 1949, at a regular meeting of the city council, a resolution was adopted requiring users of city water outside the city limits to pay double the city water rate. The defendant claims the right to discontinue the water service to the plaintiffs if its charge for water is not paid. The plaintiffs are willing to pay the amount that is legal and necessary for the maintenance of the water works and the retirement of bonds. The resolution of March 7, 1949, is ultra vires and void, in that it constitutes an unreasonable discrimination against the plaintiffs and denies them equal protection of the law, in violation of the constitution, art. 1, sec. 1, par. 2. It is unreasonably discriminatory, in that it purports to establish a charge for water on unreasonable and arbitrary grounds. The resolution was adopted through malice and in an illegal attempt to force the plaintiffs to consent that their property be brought within the corporate limits of the city. If the plaintiffs fail to pay the double rate, the water supply to their premises will be discontinued, and there will result jeopardy to the comfort, convenience, and health of the plaintiffs, and jeopardy to property values. Because of the jeopardy to which the plaintiffs' properties would be subjected, should the defendant discontinue furnishing water, they are forced to continue to pay an illegal charge, and are without an adequate legal remedy.
The prayers were: that the defendant be required to discover the amount of receipts from the operation of its water works, the cost of maintenance, the amount of bonds and revenue certificates outstanding, and the amount of capital allocable to that portion of the water works used for the purpose of furnishing water to the plaintiffs; for process; that the defendant be enjoined from charging an amount in excess of a rate necessary to pay cost and services, and from discontinuing water service to the plaintiffs; and for other relief.
The defendant's general demurrers were sustained, and the exception is to that judgment.
Cumming, Nixon & Eve, Augusta, for plaintiffs in error.
Wm. P. Congdon, Edwin D. Fulcher, Fulcher & Fulcher, Augusta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. 'The business affairs of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
...of Colorado Springs (1957) 136 Colo. 248, 315 P.2d 822, cert. den. 355 U.S. 955, 78 S.Ct. 541, 2 L.Ed.2d 531; Barr v. City Council of Augusta (1950) 206 Ga. 753, 58 S.E.2d 823; Davisworth v. City of Lexington (1949) 311 Ky. 606, 224 S.W.2d 649, 651.) (Nonresidents have no lawful claim upon ......
-
Platt v. Town of Torrey
...(en banc) (holding that nonresident rates are matter of contract that will not be reviewed for reasonableness); Barr v. City Council of Augusta, 206 Ga. 753, 58 S.E.2d 823 (1950); Forest City v. City of Oregon, 569 S.W.2d 330 (Mo.Ct.App.1978) (statute allowing municipalities to sell water "......
-
Diverse Power, Inc. v. City of Lagrange
...it undertakes to furnish, nor may the municipal authorities be compelled to render such service." (quoting Barr v. City Council of Augusta , 206 Ga. 753, 58 S.E.2d 823, 824–25 (1950) )).6 The case for immunity is arguably stronger than in Hallie because O.C.G.A. § 36-65-1 and § 36-65-2 clea......
-
Mitchell v. City of Wichita
...39 Cal. App.2d at 138 (lack of uniformity in rates for water services is not prima facia evidence of unreasonableness); Barr v. City Council of Augusta, 206 Ga. 753, Syl. ¶ 3, 58 S.E.2d 823 (1950) (rates which differ for water services inside the city limits from those outside the city limi......