Bienville Water Supply Company v. City of Mobile, 368
| Decision Date | 06 November 1899 |
| Docket Number | No. 368,368 |
| Parties | BIENVILLE WATER SUPPLY COMPANY, Appt. , v. CITY OF MOBILE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. D. P. Bestor and R. H. Clarke for appellant.
Messrs. B. B. Boone and E. L. Russell for appellee.
The was a bill in equity filed in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama, by the Bienville Water Supply Company against the city of Mobile and its mayor, to enjoin defendants from making or carrying out any contract for supplying water to the inhabitants of the city or for constructing a system of waterworks for that purpose during the continuance of certain contracts between complainant and the city, made parts of the bill, and from building or acquiring a system of waterworks to bring water into the city during such continuance.
The parties were all citizens of Alabama, but complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the circuit court on the ground that the case was one arising under the Constitution of the United States, in that the contracts between it and the city were violated and impaired in the premises.
Defendants demurred, assigning special causes, among which were the following:
'(1) Because said bill, taken in connection with Exhibits 'A' and 'B,' made a part thereof, shows that no contract was made between the city of Mobile and the Bienville Water Supply Company as to the rates to be charged the inhabitants of said city for water, but that said contract merely fixed a maximum rate that said water company was to charge the inhabitants of said city of Mobile.
'(2) Because said bill of complaint shows that said city of Mobile was specially authorized and empowered by its charter and by the act of the general assembly of Alabama approved November 30, 1898 (and of which said act this court will take judicial notice), to buy or to build, erect and maintain, and to operate waterworks for the supply of its inhabitants with water, and for the extinguishment of fires, and for sanitary, domestic, and other purposes.
'(3) Because there is nothing shown or alleged in said bill of complaint and in said Exhibits 'A' and 'B,' made a part thereof, which precludes or estops the city of Mobile from buying, building, erecting, maintaining, and operating a system of waterworks.
'(4) Because said Exhibits 'A' and 'B' made a part of said bill of complaint, show that the only obligation resting upon and binding upon said city of Mobile is that it shall pay to said Bienville Water Supply Company the sum of fifty dollars ($50) each per annum, payments to be made monthly, for 260 fire hydrants placed on the streets of said city by said water supply company until the expiration of said contract on July 1st, A. D. 1900, and it is not alleged or charged in said bill of complaint that the city of Mobile has or intends to repudiate its obligation to pay for said 260 fire hydrants at the rate of $50 each per annum, payments to be made monthly.'
'(8) Because said bill of complaint fails to allege any facts which show that the city of Mobile has or intends to do or commit any act which will impair the said contract between the city of Mobile and the Bienville Water Supply Company, and which said contract is made a part of the bill of complaint.
'(9) Because it is shown upon the face of said bill of complaint that the city of Mobile did not grant the complainant the franchise to lay its said water mains and pipes in the city of Mobile, but that it was done by the general assembly of Alabama, and from which it appears that said city of Mobile had no lawful authority to grant or to enter into a contract with complainant, conferring thereby the exclusive right or privilege of supplying water to the inhabitants of said city of Mobile.'
The court sustained the demurrer on the foregoing grounds, and gave complainant fifteen days in which to amend, and, no amendment having been made, dismissed the bill. From that decree an appeal to this court was allowed and perfected, and motions to dismiss or affirm submitted.
The opinion of the circuit court, Toulmin, J., is reported 95 Fed. Rep. 539, and states the facts appearing from the bill, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omaha Water Co. v. City of Omaha
... ... water company was entitled to an injunction to restrain its ... ordinance in the event the contract for the public supply and ... fire protection shall be awarded;' and that the ... Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 184 ... U.S. 368, 382, 388, 389, 22 Sup.Ct. 410, 46 L.Ed. 592; ... Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 175 U.S. 109, ... 20 Sup.Ct ... ...
-
Madera Waterworks v. City of Madera
... ... water under the section of the Constitution to which ... artificial light, any individual, or any company ... duly incorporated for such purpose, under ... 400, 46 L.Ed. 585); Bienville Water Supply Co. v ... Mobile, 175 U.S. 109 ... ...
-
E. Wis. Ry. & Light Co. v. Hackett
...Ct. 405, 30 L. Ed. 563;San Diego L. Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154;Bienville Water Sup. Co. v. Mobile, 175 U. S. 109, 20 Sup. Ct. 40, 44 L. Ed. 92;Los Angeles v. Los Angeles C. W. Co., 177 U. S. 558, 20 Sup. Ct. 736, 44 L. Ed. 886;Consolidated W. Co. v.......
-
City Sanitation Co. v. City of Casper
...tenure of the contract does not imply an exclusive right. Bartholomew v. City, 85 F. 359; Water Co. v. Tillamook, 150 F. 117; Bienville Co. v. Mobile, 175 U.S. 109. We have unable to find a decided case brought upon a contract granted under a general ordinance of this class. The judgment sh......