City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines

• Decision Date: 10 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. 48143,48143
• Citation: 56 N.W.2d 904,244 Iowa 310
• Parties: CITY OF DES MOINES v. CITY OF WEST DES MOINES et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 904

56 N.W.2d 904

244 Iowa 310

CITY OF DES MOINES v. CITY OF WEST DES MOINES et al.

No. 48143.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 10, 1953.

John A. Blanchard, Corp. Counsel, Harris M. Coggeshall, City Sol., and Frank D. Bianco, Asst. City Sol., Des Moines, for appellant.

Whitfield, Musgrave, Selvy, Fillmore & Kelly, of Des Moines, for appellees.

OLIVER, Justice.

In 1925 plaintiff, City of Des Moines, and defendant, City of West Des Moines, then named Valley Junction, entered into a contract for the use of part of plaintiff's sanitary sewer system as an outlet for defendants' sanitary sewer system. In 1947 plaintiff brought suit against defendant city alleging the contract was void for various reasons and that it was unreasonable and praying that it be decreed void or, in the alternative, that defendant be required to pay, for the use of plaintiff's sewer facilities, a sum per person of its population equivalent to the cost to plaintiff per person. Defendant moved to dismiss upon the ground the petition did not state a cause of action and showed on its face the contract was valid and binding. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff appealed. In 1949, this court affirmed the judgment. City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, 239 Iowa 1, 30 N.W.2d 500.

In 1940, 1948, 1949 and 1950 defendant city changed its boundaries by annexing certain adjoining territory and proceeded to extend its sanitary sewer system into such territory. Alleging the rights of defendant city to use the sewer outlet under the 1925 contract, were limited to defendant's 1925 boundaries, plaintiff, in 1950, brought the instant suit against defendant city and its officers for a declaratory judgment adjudicating the rights of the parties under the contract and for other relief. After the case was at issue defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under 58 I.C.A., R.C.P. 222. The trial court sustained the motion generally and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

The written contract, executed in duplicate July 6, 1925, consists of about seventeen hundred words. As pointed out in the former decision, City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, 239 Iowa 1, 30 N.W.2d 500, 505, supra, legislation was necessary before the contract could be made and, 'The contract reveals internal evidence that the legislation, though general, was for the special benefit of the two cities'.

The contract provides in part 'the party of the first part (plaintiff) does hereby grant to the party of the second part (defendant city) the continuing right to connect the sanitary sewer system of the said party of the second part to the said sanitary sewer system of the party of the first part, known as the South West Sewer System, * * * and to use said South West Sewer as an outlet for the said sanitary sewer system of the party of the second part', the connection to be made at a point already provided, describing it. 'Said second party may also connect its sanitary sewer system with said South West Sewer System * * * at any point where it is practicable and feasible so to do as an outlet * * *'. The contract provides that defendant city pay plaintiff $40,000 November 1, 1925, $2,000 annually for ten years commencing June 1, 1926, $2,500 annually thereafter for ten years, with the right to subsequent extensions of ten years by giving notice, 'and thereupon there shall be due and payable, by said party of the second part, to the party of the first part, an annual sum equal to fifty cents (50cents) per capita of the population of the party of the second part at the time of giving said notice'. Further extensions could be secured 'in periods of ten (10) years, by giving like notice and paying a like amount per capita annually thereafter, * * *.'

'It Is Mutually Understood and Agreed * * * that the amounts stipulated in this contract * * * shall constitute compensation in full * * * for the perpetual use * * * of said South West Sewer System, * * * for emptying into said sewer system all sewage and liquids accumulating in the sanitary sewer system of the party of the second part, for the treatment and disposal of same.'

The pleadings are voluminous. However, the basic contentions pleaded by plaintiff may be summarized as follows: (1) that the provisions of the contract limited the rights secured thereunder by defendant city to its then existing geographical boundaries and did not include territory which thereafter might become part of defendant city and (2) that this was the intention, understanding and agreement of the parties at the time the contract was made.

Plaintiff prayed judgment declaring the rights and status of the parties under the contract, limiting the rights of defendant city thereunder to sewage originating within its 1925 geographical boundaries, and requiring that new contracts be negotiated or that plaintiff be paid a reasonable sum for the use of plaintiff's sewer facilities by such portion of defendant city as became part thereof subsequent to the making of the 1925 contract, or that such use be enjoined.

Defendants' answer stated, in part, that the contract showed upon its face it was applicable to all the City of West Des Moines, including the territories subsequently annexed thereto and alleged it was the intention of the parties to the contract that it should apply to all of the City of West Des Moines at all times; that the contract did not exclude any territory thereafter annexed to West Des Moines and that plaintiff's petition, therefore, did not state a cause of action. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings presented, among other things, the question whether the pleaded, undisputed facts were legally sufficient to entitle plaintiff to relief.

I. No language in the contract...