James Murray v. City of Pocatello
| Decision Date | 16 December 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 575,575 |
| Citation | 226 U.S. 318,33 S.Ct. 107,57 L.Ed. 239 |
| Parties | JAMES A. MURRAY, Doing Business as the Pocatello Water Company, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF POCATELLO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William V. Hodges, Gerald Hughes, Clayton C. Dorsey, A. A. Hoehling, Jr., and N. M. Ruick for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 318-322 intentionally omitted] Messrs. D. Worth Clark, Jesse R. S. Budge, Aldis B. Browne, Alexander Britton, and Evans Browne for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Holmes:
This was an application by the defendant in error for a mandate requiring the plaintiff in error, Murray, to appoint commissioners to act with commissioners appointed by the city in determining water rates to be charged by Murray. Murray relied upon an ordinance of June 6, 1901, as establishing by contract the only method of fixing rates. The city relied upon a subsequent statute, § 2839, Rev. Code. The supreme court of the state held that the Constitution in force when the ordinance was passed made it impossible for the city to make a contract on the matter beyond the power of the legislature to change. The Constitution declared the use of waters distributed for a beneficial use to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state, and also declared the right to collect rates for water to be a franchise that could not be exercised except by authority of and in the manner prescribed by law. It then ordained that the legislature should provide by law the manner in which reasonable maximum rates might be established. Art. 15, §§ 1, 2, 6. The court relied upon Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Tampa, 199 U. S. 241, 50 L. ed. 170, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23; Home Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Los Angeles, 211 U. S. 265, 53 L. ed. 176, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 50, and Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 55 L. ed. 297, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 671, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265, which so far sustain its conclusion that we think further discussion unnecessary. We are not prepared to overrule the construction of the legislative power as continuing and irrevocable, adopted by the supreme court of the state.
A defense more relied upon was res judicata. In 1909 the city brought a bill in equity in the circuit court, seeking to have the court fix reasonable rates. The defendant demurred for want of jurisdiction to give relief in equity and multifariousness. The decree was that the demurrer be sustained and the bill dismissed. The dismissal was in general terms, but with a reference to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E. Henry Wemme Co. v. Selling
... ... in Couch's Addition to the city of Portland, and also ... lots one (1) and four (4), and the south ... Murray v. City of Pocatello, 226 U.S. 318, 33 S.Ct ... 107, 57 L.Ed. 239 ... Judge Mary J. Spurling, Dr ... Philip A. Parsons, Dr. James W. Rosenfeld, Milton A. Miller, ... Chairman ... "Delinquent ... ...
-
Ledbetter v. Wesley
...the fact that it had no capacity to bring the action. It is not similar to the situation presented in Murray v. Pocatello, 226 U. S. 318, 324, 33 S. Ct. 107, 108 (57 L. Ed. 239), where the court said, "Of course if the court was not empowered to grant the relief whatever the merits might be......
-
Hustead v. H. E. Brown Timber Company
... ... " ... It has ... been approved by this court in City of Pocatello v ... Murray, 21 Idaho 180, 120 P. 812, affirmed in the ... ...
-
Ottumwa Ry. & Light Co. v. City of Ottumwa
...the ultimate judge of what is public policy, declares unmistakably that such contracts do not offend that policy. Murray v. City, 226 U. S. 318, 33 Sup. Ct. 107, 57 L. Ed. 239;Ft. Smith Co. v. Ft. Smith (D. C.) 202 Fed. 581. [4][5] IV. It being so clear, then, that the trial court erred, un......