Boise City Irr. & Land Co. v. Clark
Citation | 131 F. 415 |
Decision Date | 31 May 1904 |
Docket Number | 999. |
Parties | BOISE CITY IRR. & LAND CO. v. CLARK et al., County Com'rs. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Fremont Wood and Edgar Wilson, for appellant.
Alfred A. Fraser, for appellees.
Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.
The appellant is a New Jersey corporation, and brought the present suit in the court below against the county commissioners of Ada county, Idaho, sitting as a board of water commissioners, to obtain a decree annulling an order made by the commission fixing a maximum rate to be charged by the complainant for water delivered from its canal system to consumers thereof for the irrigating season of the year 1901. The provisions of the Constitution and statutes of the state of Idaho bearing upon the question are as follows:
Section 1 of article 15 of the state Constitution declares:
'The use of all waters now appropriated, or that may hereafter be appropriated for sale, rental, or distribution; also of all waters originally appropriated for private use, but which after such appropriation has heretofore been, or may hereafter be sold, rented, or distributed, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state in the manner prescribed by law.'
Section 2 of the same article of the Constitution provides that:
'The right to collect tolls for compensation for the use of water supplied to any county, city, or town, or water district, or the inhabitants thereof, is a franchise, and cannot be exercised except by the authority of or in the manner prescribed by law.'
Section 6 of the same article declares that:
'The Legislature shall provide by law the manner in which reasonable maximum rates may be established, to be charged for the use of water sold, rented, or distributed for any useful or beneficial purpose.'
In pursuance of those provisions of the Constitution of the state, its Legislature enacted, in its Civil Code, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spring Val. Water Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
...... the rule stated as follows, in San Diego Land Co. v. National City, 174 U.S. 739, 757, 19 Sup.Ct. 804, 43. L.Ed. ... Capital City Gaslight Co. v. Des Moines. (C.C.) 72 F. 829, 844; Boise City I. & L. Co. v. Clark, 131 F. 415, 65 C.C.A. 399; Cons. Gas Co. v. ......
-
Yancy v. Shatzer
...(deciding dispute over form of ballot after election, because issue was likely to recur). Similarly, in Boise City Irrig. & Land Co. v. Clark, 131 F. 415, 419 (9th Cir.1904), the court adjudicated a challenge to irrigation rates even though the effective period of the disputed rate had ende......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine
......481, 494; Timm v. Harrison, 109 Ill. 593, 596;. City of Winona v. School Dist., 40 Minn. 13, 41 N.W. 539, 3 ...580, 69 P. 255, 256; City of. Seattle v. Clark, 28 Wash. 717, 69 P. 407, 410;. State v. Conkling, 19 ...v. Des Moines (C.C.) 72 F. 829, 844;. Boise City I. & L. Co. v. Clark, 131 F. 415, 65. C.C.A. 399; ... 376, 59 A. 537. . . In. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439,. 446, 23 Sup.Ct. 571, ......
-
Hatch v. Consumers' Co., Ltd.
...... STREET-EXTENSION OF CITY BOUNDARY-IMPLIED CONTRACT OF. CORPORATION-CONFISCATION OF ... strip of land 2,663 ft. in length by 2.8 ft. wide at one end,. and 67 ... ( Wheeler v. Northern Colo. Irr. Co., 10 Colo. 582,. 3 Am. St. 603, 17 P. 487; Rockland ...714;. Jack v. Williams, 113 F. 827; Boise City Irr. & Land. Co. v. Clark, 131 F. 415, 422.). . . ......