Defiance Water Co. v. City of Defiance

• Decision Date: 30 December 1898
• Citation: 90 F. 753
• Parties: DEFIANCE WATER CO. v. CITY OF DEFIANCE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

90 F. 753

DEFIANCE WATER CO. v. CITY OF DEFIANCE et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

December 30, 1898

Henry &amp Robert Newbegin, for complainant.

Harris & Cameron and Geo. T. Farrell, City Sol., for defendants.

SEVERENS District Judge.

The conclusion which I reach in this case is that the demurrer should be overruled. There are three principal questions involved in this determination, which are decided as follows:

1. Was it necessary that the city at the time of entering into the contract for water should have had in its treasury, or should have had in course of collection, the funds necessary to meet the expenditure contemplated by the contract, as provided for by the section of the Ohio statutes in that behalf (being Rev. St. Sec. 2702)? My opinion is that the statute did not apply to the contract in question and that there is no objection to the contract by reason of any requirement of the statute referred to. No payment was to become due for a considerable time, a year and a half or more, and the statute does not intend that the money shall be collected and hoarded for the expenses of the city in future years.

2. Was it necessary to the validity of the said contract that it should have been ratified by a vote of the electors, as was required by the act of January 29, 1885, being section 2434 of the Revised Statutes? I think this question must be answered in the negative, my opinion being that the act of May 4, 1885, as amended by the act of May 12, 1886, relating specially to a certain grade of cities, to which the city of Defiance belongs, must be regarded as having superseded, to the extent of the cities of that grade, the general provisions of the statute of January 29, 1885. The general act prescribed no limitation in regard to the time for which such contract might be made. The special acts of May 4, 1885 and May 12, 1886, limited the time to a term not exceeding 20 years. The term for which the contract might be made being short, it may well be that the legislature should have thought so much precaution was not necessary as if the time had been for a protracted period. The contract was, in terms for a period of 30 years; but as its stipulations are to be performed annually, and it is separable by years, I think the contract is valid for 20 years from its date. A somewhat similar question was presented to the supreme court of the United States in the...