Maricopa Utilities Co. v. Cline
| Decision Date | 23 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4479 |
| Parties | MARICOPA UTILITIES CO., a Corporation, et al., Appellants, v. W. M. CLINE and B. v. CLINE, His Wife, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Dudley W. Windes, Judge. Judgment reversed.
Messrs Woolf & Shute, for Appellants.
Messrs Cox & Cox and Mr. Herbert Watson, for Appellees.
On June 3, 1940, appellees moved into a community east and adjacent to the City of Phoenix, and the first part of July, 1940 commenced buying their domestic water from the Maricopa Utilities Co., owned at that time by Charles A. Estey and Ira W. Bellinger. The place of residence of the appellees was 1905 East Grant Street, in the Rayburn Tract. The said Charles A. Estey, in the month of September of that year applied to the Arizona Corporation Commission for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the operation of a water utility under the name of Maricopa Utilities Co., for the purpose of furnishing domestic water to their customers, especially in the said Rayburn Tract; that said certificate was granted on the 30th day of September, 1940. About the time of their application for same the said Estey and Bellinger entered into a contract of employment with appellants H. W. Wittman and Edwin C. Hoelzen to operate said utility, which contract was dated September 25, 1940, and to run for a period of five years beginning September 1st of said year.
The appellees made their first purchase of water at the rate of $2 per month in the early part of July. On the 20th day of September they made a payment of $6 for water service, being payment to January 1, 1941.
The order of the Arizona Corporation Commission, granting the aforesaid Certificate of Convenience and Necessity included the following paragraph:
Appellees brought their action for damages alleging that the appellants wrongfully cut off their water thereby causing great inconvenience in the procuring of the necessary drinking and domestic water, and caused appellees to suffer great mental and physical pain and anguish and they were greatly humiliated, all to the damage of $2,000.
Appellants allege in their answer that on the 11th day of October, 1940, acting under the power and authority of the aforesaid contract and in accordance with the order of the Arizona Corporation Commission, they notified their customers, including the appellees herein, of the action of the Arizona Corporation Commission, and included in the letter the paragraph heretofore referred to concerning prompt payment deposit, and again on November 2, 1940, the appellees, having failed to make said deposit, were notified that on the 18th day of October, unless the payment was made, the water service would be discontinued, and the deposit not having been made, on the 18th day of November the appellants did discontinue the water service.
In the trial of this cause verdict for the appellees was rendered by a jury in the sum of $200 as damages.
The contentions of the appellants are:
First: That when the Arizona Corporation Commission enters a valid order in the exercise of its power to fix rates and regulate public service utilities, such order is binding on everyone, whether parties to the hearing in which it was made or not, and such order has the force and effect of a statute.
Second: That where the appellee admits that he has notice of an order of the Arizona Corporation Commission requiring a guarantee deposit to be made and his water service is discontinued for a failure to make such deposit, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the appellant.
Third: That where the trial court tells the jury as in this case, "I think there is a corresponding duty on the part of defendants in some way to let the plaintiff know that this five dollar deposit was due and was supposed to be paid," it is an invasion of the jury's duty, and a comment on the evidence.
Fourth: That the court should have given a proper instruction covering the plaintiffs' measure of damages, whether asked or not.
As the appellants take their propositions of law Nos. 1 and 2 together, we, likewise, will dispose of them together.
Counsel for both appellants and appellees agree on the rule laid down in the case of Middand Realty Co. v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 300 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 345 81 L.Ed. 540, to the effect that a rate established by a Corporation Commission supersedes a prior unexpired contract and has the same force and effect as directly prescribed by the legislature, except that appellees herein claim that the order would not relieve the utility of some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
...” Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500–01, 943 P.2d 855, 860–61 (App.1997), quoting Maricopa Utils. Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 214, 134 P.2d 156, 158 (1943) (omission in Hall ).¶ 11 In this case, the deed of trust contained an incorrect legal description insofar as it referr......
-
Essex Wire Corp. of Cal. v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist.
...of 'minor' electric shocks were not sufficient to put a man 'of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry.' Maricopa Utilities Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 134 P.2d 156 (1943). That some wire used at some unknown location (or perhaps even replaced) gave indication that some manufacturer'......
-
Hall v. World Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 1
... ... , however, had already obtained a judgment in California against Milton but recorded it in Maricopa County after World had recorded its deed of trust. Hall could have foreclosed the lien of his ... Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 214, 134 P.2d ... Page 861 ... [189 Ariz. 501] 156, 158 (1943) (quoting ... ...
-
Delo v. Gmac Mortg., L.L.C.
...disclose.’ ” Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 189 Ariz. 495, 500, 943 P.2d 855, 860 (App.1997), quoting Maricopa Utils. Co. v. Cline, 60 Ariz. 209, 214, 134 P.2d 156, 158 (1943). “Constructive notice and actual notice have the same effect and when the purchaser of land has notice of a prior......