Helena Waterworks Company v. City of Helena
Decision Date | 28 November 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 27,27 |
Citation | 25 S.Ct. 40,49 L.Ed. 245,195 U.S. 383 |
Parties | HELENA WATERWORKS COMPANY, Appt. , v. CITY OF HELENA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case was begun by a bill filed in the circuit court of the United States by the Helena Waterworks Company, successor to the Helena Consolidated Water Company, to restrain the city of Helena from erecting purchasing, or acquiring a waterworks system for said city, and from acquiring water for such purpose, except it purchase the plant of the complainant company, and from incurring any indebtedness or expenditure of money for such purpose.
The rights in controversy are alleged to result from a contract made by the passage, and acceptance by the company, of a certain ordinance, number 248, passed and approved in January, 1890.
It is also alleged that the Helena Consolidated Water Company, predecessor of the complainant company, complied with all the terms of the ordinance, and expended large sums of money in erecting and maintaining the plant for supplying water to the inhabitants of the said city of Helena.
It is averred that the said city has adopted certain ordinances and taken certain proceedings to acquire and build a water system of its own, and that said ordinances and proceedings are in violation of the contract rights of the complainant company, guaranteed by § 11 of article 3 of the Constitution of the state of Montana, and § 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, and that the proceedings of the city in this behalf will amount to taking the property of the complainant company without just compensation, in violation of § 14 of article 3 of the Constitution of the state of Montana, and that its rights and property will be taken without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It is further averred that the taxation necessary for the construction of the city plant is in excess of any that can be lawfully levied for such purpose.
The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. In the circuit court a decision was rendered in favor of the waterworks company. Upon appeal to the circuit court of appeals that court reversed the decision of the circuit court, and remanded the case, with instructions to dismiss the bill. 58 C. C. A. 381, 122 Fed. 1.
The terms of the ordinance relied upon, and so much of the agreed statement of facts as is necessary to a determination of the case, sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Messrs. M. S. Gunn, B. Platt Carpenter, and Stephen Carpenter for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 384-386 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edward Horsky, Edwin W. Toole, Thomas C Bach, E. C. Day, and R. Lee Word for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Day:
As the ordinance under consideration contains no express stipulation that the city shall not build a plant of its own to supply water for public and private purposes, and the grant is expressly declared not to be exclusive of the right to contract with another company, this case, unless it can be distinguished, is ruled by recent decisions of this court. Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685-696, 41 L. ed. 1165-1168, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 718; Joplin v. Southwestern Missouri Light Co. 191 U. S. 150, 48 L. ed. 127, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43; Skaneateles Waterworks Co. v. Skaneateles, 184 U. S. 354, 46 L. ed. 585, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400. These cases hold that the grant of the franchise does not of itself raise an implied contract that the grantor will not do any act to interfere with the rights granted to the waterworks company, and that, in the absence of the grant of an exclusive privilege, none will be implied against the public, but must arise, if at all, from some specific contract, binding upon the municipality.
As stated by appellant's counsel: A consideration of this contention requires an examination of the sections of the ordinance pertinent to a determination of the question:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... Louis-san ... Francisco Railway Company v. Sebastian Bridge District, the ... issues presented ... him and the board-- John Ayers was a good man, the city of ... Ft. Smith never suffered a greater loss in any of ... Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L.Ed. 773; Helena ... Waterworks Co. v. Helena, 195 U.S. 383, 25 Sup.Ct. 40, ... ...
-
Omaha Water Co. v. City of Omaha
... ... maintenance of waterworks 'on such terms and under such ... regulations as may be agreed on. ' The ... water company was entitled to an injunction to restrain its ... execution ... Co., 192 ... U.S. 201, 207-8, 24 Sup.Ct. 241, 48 L.Ed. 406; Helena ... Water Works Co. v. Helena, 195 U.S. 383, 25 Sup.Ct. 40, ... 49 ... ...
-
Puget Sound Power Light Co v. City of Seattle, Wash 12 8212 15, 1934
...Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, supra; Madera Waterworks v. Madera, 228 U.S. 454, 33 S.Ct. 571, 57 L.Ed. 915; Helena Water Works Co. v. Helena, 195 U.S. 383, 25 S.Ct. 40, 49 L.Ed. 245. We need not stop to inquire whether the equal protection clause was designed to protect the citizen from advan......
-
Tennessee Electric Power Co v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...916, 30 L.Ed. 1059. 9 Joplin v. Southwest Missouri Light Co., 191 U.S. 150, 24 S.Ct. 43, 48 L.Ed. 127; Helena Waterworks Co. v. Helena, 195 U.S. 383, 393, 25 S.Ct. 40, 43, 49 L.Ed. 245; Madera Waterworks v. Madera, 228 U.S. 454, 33 S.Ct. 571, 57 L.Ed. 915; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40......