Kimball v. City of Cedar Rapids

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Citation: Kimball v. City of Cedar Rapids, 100 F. 802 (N.D. Iowa 1900)
• Decision Date: 16 April 1900
• Parties: KIMBALL et al. v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS et al.

100 F. 802

KIMBALL et al. v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

April 16, 1900

Charles A. Clark & Son, for complainants.

John N Hughes, Jameson & Smyth, Smith & Smith, and Rickel & Crocker for defendants.

SHIRAS District Judge.

The bill in this case was filed January 11, 1900, and it was therein averred that there was in existence a contract between the city of Cedar Rapids and the Cedar Rapids Water Company, which established the rates to be charged by and paid to the water company for the water supplied by it to the city for public uses and to the residents of the city for private use; this contract being in the form of an ordinance adopted by the water company, and which in terms granted to the water company, its successors and assigns, the exclusive privilege for 25 years, and an equal right thereafter with all others, of supplying the city of Cedar Rapids with water to be taken from the Cedar river at such points as will best suit the objects and purposes of the company to which the franchise is granted; it being further charged in the bill that the city council of Cedar Rapids, on the 5th day of January, 1900, had passed an ordinance seeking to fix the rates to be thereafter charged by the water company for the water furnished by it, which ordinance was violative of the contract existing between the city and the water company as evidenced by the ordinance of February 19, 1875, and the supplementary agreements entered into by the parties, the same being still in force; it being also averred that the rates sought to be fixed by the ordinance in question were unjust and inadequate, being so low that the revenue created thereby would not be sufficient to pay a dividend to the stockholders of the water company, after providing for the necessary expenses and the interest upon the bonded debt of the company. Based upon this bill, an application for the issuance of a temporary injunction was made, heard, and allowed upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court now on file. The case now comes before the court upon a demurrer to the bill, and upon the argument thereof several questions of interest have been discussed at length, which the court, however, upon the record now before it, cannot undertake to decide. Thus it is claimed that the city had not the right to grant to the water company an exclusive right to furnish water to the city and its inhabitants, as was attempted by the ordinance of February 19, 1875, and that the act of the legislature of Iowa approved March 8, 1866, legalizing the ordinance in question is invalid and void on the ground that it is special legislation, within the inhibition of section 30, art. 3, of the constitution of Iowa, which forbids the general assembly from passing special laws upon the subject of the incorporation of cities and towns. Even if it be true that the city had not the right to confer an exclusive right upon the water company to furnish water to the city, it would not follow that there did not exist contractual rights between the city and the water company during the 25 years beginning with February 19, 1875. The city had the right to contract with the water company with reference to the water supply of the city, and, if it exceeded its authority in attempting to confer an exclusive monopoly upon the company, that fact...