City of Henderson v. Young

• Decision Date: 07 December 1904
• Citation: 119 Ky. 224,83 S.W. 583
• Parties: CITY OF HENDERSON v. YOUNG.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

83 S.W. 583

119 Ky. 224

CITY OF HENDERSON v. YOUNG.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 7, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Henderson County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by S. A. Young against the city of Henderson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

John Francis Lockett, for appellant.

Clay &amp Clay, for appellee.

BURNAM C.J.

This action was instituted by the appellee, S. A. Young, a resident and taxpayer of the city of Henderson, to enjoin the city authorities from furnishing to property outside of the city limits an electric light current from the electric light plant belonging to the city, upon the grounds that by the express terms of subsection 5 of section 3290 of the Kentucky Statutes of 1903, which is a section of the charter of cities of the third class, to which Henderson belongs, it was only authorized to provide the city and the inhabitants thereof with water, light, power, heat, telephone service, etc., and by necessary implication it was prohibited from extending such service beyond the city limits. The city, for answer says, in substance: "That the electric light plant belonging to the city is equipped with machinery which is capable, with the same number of employés now found necessary to conduct it, to furnish, with a small additional expense for fuel, light to a very much larger number of customers than it now has, or is likely to have for some years to come and that the only way in which it can pay for the construction of the plant and meet its operating expenses is to enlarge the number of its probable customers; that in the instance complained of it has the personal guaranty of solvent parties, living just outside of the city limits, to pay such a sum for three years as will reimburse it for all the expense to which the city would be subjected in making the proposed extension, and to take and pay for the electric current to be furnished by the city at ten per cent. in excess of the price charged to residents of the city. It is further alleged that the city will be in no wise embarrassed in its duty to furnish light to the city by the proposed contract with parties living outside of the city, but that such contract would be for the mutual benefit of both parties." A general demurrer was sustained to the answer, and the city perpetually enjoined from extending its electric current outside the city limits, and the city has appealed.

A...