Jacksonville Electric Light Co. v. City of Jacksonville

• Decision Date: 15 October 1895
• Citation: 18 So. 677,36 Fla. 229
• Parties: JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

18 So. 677

36 Fla. 229

JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE et al.

Florida Supreme Court

October 15, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Duval county; R. M. Call, Judge.

Bill by Jacksonville Electric Light Company against the city of Jacksonville, the board of public works, and the General Electric Company. Order for temporary injunction denied, and bill dismissed. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. A municipal corporation can exercise only such powers as are granted to it in express terms, or those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, or those that are essential and indispensable, not simply convenient, to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation. Any fair, reasonable doubt concerning the existence of the power is resolved by the courts against the corporation.

2. While a strict construction should be applied to the grant of powers, and especially those which result in public burdens or which are out of the usual range of corporate action, yet if a power is fairly or necessary implied in or incident to those clearly given, it should not be impaired by a strict construction.

3. All the powers conferred upon a municipal corporation should be construed with a view of carrying out the objects and purposes of its creation as a public agency.

4. Supplying the inhabitants of a city with electric light, for use in their private residences and houses, is such a municipal purpose as to authorize its delegation by the legislature to municipal bodies.

5. The charter act of the city of Jacksonville (chapter 3775, Acts 1887) conferring power upon the city council to provide for lighting the city by gas or other illuminating material, or in any other manner, together with other specified powers held sufficient to authorize the erection and maintenance, at public cost, of an electric plant of sufficient power and capacity to light, not only the streets and public places in the corporation, but also for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of the city with electric light for use in their private residences and houses.

COUNSEL

John E. Hartridge and Henderson & Raney, for appellant.

A. W. Cockrell & Son, for appellees. The appellant company, a corporation existing under the laws of Florida, was complainant in the circuit court, and owned an electric plant of the value of $30,000 and subject to taxation, in the city of Jacksonville. It alleged that it had been and was then engaged in furnishing electric light to the city of Jacksonville and the inhabitants thereof, in their private houses and places of business, and that its plant had sufficient power and capacity to furnish all the electric light that the city and its inhabitants might desire; that the city, through its board of public works, had entered into a contract with the General Electric Company, a corporation existing under the laws of New York, for the purpose of constructing an electric light plant within said city, and also contracted with other persons and corporations unknown to complainant, for the purpose of purchasing engines and boilers to provide motive power for said plant. The right of the board of public works to so act is claimed under and by virtue of some ordinance of the city. That under the agreement with the General Electric Company, the city had contracted to purchase material, machinery, apparatus, lamps, and lights, not only for the purpose of establishing an electric plant to light the streets, public buildings, and places of the city, but for the purpose of furnishing and selling electric light to the inhabitants of the city in their private residences and places of business. For the material, apparatus, and lamps to be procured from the General Electric Company, the city was to pay $47,500, and for the engines and boilers the sum of $25,000 was to be paid, making a total of $72,500. That the city intended to appropriate the public revenues of the municipality to pay for such electric plant, and it was the design of the city and its board of public works to construct said plant with such power and capacity as would be necessary to supply lamps and light to all the inhabitants of said city in their private houses and praces of business, and for this purpose it had provided in said contract to purchase 4,000 incandescent lamps, which were not necessary, and could not properly be applied to light the streets and other public places of the city, and that, independent of said 4,000 lamps, the city had provided for all lamps, both are and incandescent, necessary and proper for lighting the streets and public places in the city. The cost of the plant, engines, boilers, machinery, and attachments, it is alleged, exceeds the cost of such plant in full and adequate power to light the streets and public places of the city by between $35,000 and $40,000, and that the expenditure of such excess was improvident, unauthorized by the laws of the state, and a wrong to the taxpayers of the city. That the city had no power to appropriate any of its revenues, or levy and collect taxes for any purpose and object other than a strictly municipal purpose, and that the appropriating of its revenues for the purpose of buying machinery and apparatus to furnish lights to the inhabitants of the city, in their private houses and places of business, was not a municipal purpose, and the city had no authority to do so. It is also alleged that the board of public works and the city have violated the ninth and thirteenth sections of the charter act of the city, being chapter 3775, in reference to letting contracts for over $200 to the lowest responsible bidder, and that the General Electric Company was not the lowest bidder for furnishing machinery and apparatus for said electric plant, but other responsible parties bid a less sum for the same material than the said General Electric Company.

The bill prays that the city and the board of public works be enjoined from executing and performing the contract entered into between the board of public works and the General Electric Company, and from applying any revenues of the city towards the execution of the said contract, and also that the city and board of public works be enjoined from appropriating any revenues of the city to pay for the 4,000 incandescent lights, and the other portions of the apparatus and machinery designed for commercial purposes, or to pay for any engines, boilers, or machinery other than strictly necessary to furnish motive power for an electric plant of sufficient power and capacity to light the streets and other public places and buildings of the city of Jacksonville.

The answer of the city and the board of public works, on information, alleges that complainant's plant did not have as much as one-half the necessary power or capacity to furnish all the electric lights that the city and its inhabitants desired or would pay for it electric lights were furnished to them at a reasonable price. The contracts with the General Electric Company and other companies for the construction of an electric light plant in the city of Jacksonville are admitted, and it is alleged that they were entered into by virtue of and in compliance with the laws of the state and ordinances of the city of Jacksonville. It is also averred that, in making the contracts for the erection of said electric plant in the city, provision was made for such a plant as would have the power and capacity to furnish all the lights needed for lighting the streets and public places of the city, and also for furnishing some electric lights to the inhabitants of the city in their private residences and places of business. The answer further alleges that, under the provisions of the laws of this state, and ordinances of the city of Jacksonville, the city had authorized the issue and sale of $75,000 of bonds to pay for the erection of an electric plant, and it was not contemplated that the plant contracted to be erected would be paid for from the ordinary revenues of the city derived from taxation. It is denied that the city of Jacksonville contemplated, or any of her authorized officers or agents had ever declared their design to construct, an electric light plant with sufficient power and capacity to furnish lamps and lights to all the inhabitants of the city, in their private residences and places of business, and it is averred that the city had not contracted for sufficient lamps and material for furnishing such amount of lights. It is further stated that the officers of the city having in charge the erection of said electric light plant had used their best discretion in contracting for the same, and had contracted for the erection of a plant sufficient, and only sufficient, to furnish adequate lights for the streets and public places of the city, and such number of private residences and business houses as complainant's plant was unable to supply, and to supply a want in this respect that complainant, through a long term of years, had deliberately abstained from supplying. The answer claims that defendants had authority under the laws of the state and the ordinances of the city to contract for the erection of such plant as was contemplated. The allegations of the bill in reference to not letting out the contracts to the lowest bidder are denied, and defendants say that they believe the contracts were made with the lowest and best responsible bidders. It is also further alleged that the Jacksonville Electric Light Company was, and had been for many years, the only electric light company in the city, and that the persons who control this, the only electric light company in the city, also control, and for several years have controlled, the only gas...