Miller v. Roswell Gas & Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 30 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 1970.,1970. |
| Citation | 166 P. 1177,22 N.M. 594 |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
| Parties | MILLERv.ROSWELL GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
A water or electric light company, engaged in supplying water or light to residents of a municipality under a franchise from such municipality, cannot lawfully refuse to furnish such service to a consumer, because such consumer declines to pay for past-due service for some other and independent use, or at some other place or residence.
Such a company has the right to demand payment in advance, or a reasonable deposit to secure payment for the contemplated service.
A public service corporation cannot cut off a supply of water or electricity to enforce a payment of a disputed claim.
Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; McClure, Judge.
Action by R. F. Miller against the Roswell Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A public service corporation cannot cut off a supply of water or electricity to enforce a payment of a disputed claim.
Hiram M. Dow, of Roswell, for appellant.
O. O. Askren, of Roswell, for appellee.
Appellant, at and prior to the institution of this action in the court below, was a public service corporation, engaged in supplying electric current to the inhabitants of the city of Roswell, this state. Appellee was the proprietor of a pool hall in such city, and on or prior to March 2, 1915, sent one of his employés, John L. Weaver, to the office of appellant to make a deposit and arrange to have the current supplied to said building. The rules of the company required the applicant to sign a written contract. Weaver, without disclosing that he was acting for appellee, signed the usual form contract for light at the pool hall. The contract so signed contained the following provision:
Upon the signing of the contract the company began to supply electricity, and continued so to do for a month or so. Later, it demanded an additional deposit of $5, which was made. Thereafter it demanded of Weaver payment of a bill theretofore contracted by him for wiring a house, having no connection whatever with the pool hall. At the time the demand was made Weaver told the agent of appellant that he had no connection with the pool hall further than being an employé of Miller, the appellant, that Miller was the proprietor, and that he (Weaver) had made the contract, signed the application, and made the deposit for Miller. Later Miller likewise so informed appellant. Appellant appropriated the $10.00 so deposited for the indebtedness owing it by Weaver, and cut off the current from appellee's place of business. This action was instituted by appellee to compel appellant to furnish current for said pool room and for damages.
[1][2] Appellant defended upon the ground: First, that Miller was not the proprietor of said pool hall; second, that Miller was an undisclosed principal, and that Weaver, who signed the contract, was indebted to it in the amount of $15.00 for wiring done, and that it appropriated the deposit in part payment of such past-due indebtedness; and, third, that Miller was theretofore indebted to it for current furnished prior to the signing of the application, and that it had appropriated the deposit for such past-due indebtedness.
As to the first defense,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Mississippi Power & Light Co
... ... ELECTRICITY ... Patron ... cannot demand and enforce furnishing of electric current by ... reason of collateral or internal liability of utility not ... directly connected ... Miss. 443, 28 So. 817; Citizens Bank v. Tracy, 120 ... Miss. 413, 82 So. 307; Miller v. State, 114 Miss. 713, 75 So ... In ... Huguley v. Hamburg, 191 Ill. A. 21, it was ... that description. State v. Butte E. & P. Co., 43 ... Mont. 118, 115 P. 44; Miller v. Roswell G. & El ... Co., 22 N.M. 594, 166 P. 1177, and authorities and ... annotations therein cited ... ...
-
State on Inf. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op.
... ... , a Corporation, Respondent, Arkansas-Missouri Power Corporation, Empire District Electric Company and Missouri Utilities Company, Intervenors No. 38883 Supreme Court of Missouri January ... 386, 152 A. 920, certiorari denied ... 283 U.S. 828, 75 L.Ed. 1441; Miller v. Roswell G. & E ... Co., 22 N.M. 594, 166 P. 1177; Re Gair Realty Corp., ... P.U.R. 390; ... ...
-
United States Cold Storage, Inc. v. Town of Warsaw
...noting it was accepted in other jurisdictions. E.g., Ten Broek v. Miller, 240 Mich. 667, 216 N.W. 385 (1927), Miller v. Roswell Gas & E. Co., 22 N.M. 594, 166 P. 1177 (1917), Seaton Mountain Electric Light v. Idaho Springs, 49 Colo. 122, 111 P. 834 (1910), Hicks v. City of Monroe Utilities ......
-
Bailey v. Interstate Power Co.
...relied upon by the appellant in the instant case may be differentiated on the facts from the foregoing cases. Miller v. Roswell Gas & Electric Co., 22 N. M. 594, 166 P. 1177, is illustrative on this point. In that case the company sought to disconnect the customer because the customer decli......