Meridian Waterworks Co. v. City of Meridian

• Decision Date: 20 February 1905
• Citation: 85 Miss. 515,37 So. 927
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MERIDIAN WATERWORKS COMPANY v. CITY OF MERIDIAN

37 So. 927

85 Miss. 515

MERIDIAN WATERWORKS COMPANY v. CITY OF MERIDIAN

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 20, 1905

FROM the chancery court of Lauderdale county, HON. STONE DEAVOURS Chancellor.

The city of Meridian, the appellee, was the complainant, and the Meridian Waterworks Company, the appellant, the defendant in the court below. From a decree in complainant's favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

A. S Bozeman, Brown & Spurlock, and G. Q. and W. M. Hall, for appellant.

Miller & Baskin, Ethridge & McBeath, and S. A. Witherspoon, for appellee.

[The briefs in this case on both sides were able, exceedingly elaborate, and full. Their very great length, however precludes the reporter from making any synopsis which would do them justice.]

OPINION

BLOUNT, Special Judge.^[*]

Bill filed in chancery court of Lauderdale county by the authorities of the city of Meridian asking a decree of forfeiture and a judgment annulling a contract entered into by the mayor and boards of aldermen and city council of said city with the Meridian Waterworks Company, under which contract said company had been operating for about twelve years. The bill alleged continued failures to furnish pure and wholesome water and fire protection, such as called for in the contract. The answer denied the breaches, and set up other defenses referred to hereafter. After prolonged continuances, running for about four years, and after taking a superabundance of testimony, much of which was immaterial, the case was finally tried by the chancellor, and a decree entered cancelling the contract. From this decree the defendant waterworks company prosecutes an appeal.

By act of the legislature of 1886, p. 589, ch 325, amending the charter of the city of Meridian, authority was given the city boards "to enter into contract with any person or company for the supply of a sufficient amount of pure and wholesome water to the people of said city." By ordinance adopted July 20, 1886, which ordinance constitutes the contract in this case, "William S. Kuhn, his associates, heirs, legal representatives, and assigns," were authorized, "under the conditions, obligations, covenants, and agreements, subject to the rights of purchase and liability of forfeiture hereinafter provided for, to construct, maintain, own, and operate waterworks in the city of Meridian." This contract, afterwards by an agreement properly entered into and made of record, was transferred to and assumed by appellant, the Meridian Waterworks Company, an incorporation chartered under the state laws. The act of the legislature authorizing this contract expressly required that "a sufficient supply of pure and wholesome water should be furnished the people of Meridian," and that such contract for such water supply "shall be guarded and carefully drawn so as to secure the city in the performance of the same. . . . But no private company shall have the right to lay water mains along the streets of the city without first obtaining the right of way from the city authorities; and the right of way shall be granted only upon condition that such person, company, or corporation shall furnish an abundant supply of pure and wholesome water, and at reasonable rates." Acts 1886, p. 591, ch. 325, sec. 3. The city authorities had no power to contract for anything less than this, and the waterworks company, having undertaken by its contract to furnish the people of Meridian with pure and wholesome water and in sufficient quantities, could not fulfill its obligations without giving the results contemplated by the law and called for in the contract made under this law. The contract was a continuing one, and was to run "twenty-five years," or until annulled "by purchase or forfeiture," and the obligations to carry out this contract were mutual. The contention is made by appellant that it fully complied with the provisions of the contract as to the quality of the water by procuring within the thirty days allowed by the ordinance samples of the water to be furnished, which was satisfactory to the city boards, and which was accepted by them, and that this is the water which is still being furnished. The contention is also made that the contract contemplated that the water should be furnished through reservoirs (which at the time the contract was made had not been built), just as it was being furnished at the date of the filing of the bill i...