Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Watts

• Decision Date: 20 January 1910
• Citation: 165 Ala. 370,51 So. 726
• Parties: MONTGOMFRY LIGHT & WATER POWER CO. v. WATTS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

51 So. 726

165 Ala. 370

MONTGOMFRY LIGHT & WATER POWER CO. v. WATTS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 20, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.

Mandamus by H. K. Watts against the Montgomery Light & Water Power Company to compel defendant to furnish gas in accordance with rates fixed by municipal ordinances. From a judgment granting relief, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Steiner Crum & Weil, for appellant.

Arrington & Houghton, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This is an appeal from the action of the court on a petition for mandamus to compel the appellant to furnish gas in accordance with certain rates fixed by the ordinance of the city of Montgomery granting the franchise on the conditions therein named. Section 4 of the ordinance, which was accepted by the appellant, provided that said company should "at all times supply the inhabitants of the city with gas for lighting and heating purposes" at prices not exceeding $1.62 per 1,000 cubic feet for lighting purposes, and $1.08 per 1,000 cubic feet for heating and other purposes. There is no provision in the ordinance in regard to meters, and the question at issue between the parties is whether or not the said company is authorized to charge to consumers a minimum amount of $1 per month as meter rent, when said consumer does not consume $1 worth of gas during the month.

The decisions are not in harmony on this question, though it will be found that the cases generally, which justify such a charge, are based upon ordinances or contracts differently worded, or upon general principles without regard to any contract--all of which can be ascertained from an examination of the cases cited in appellant's brief. However, the ordinance constitutes the charter of the company, and the contract between it and the city is for the benefit of the citizens; and the reasoning of the cases which deny such right to the company under like circumstances commends itself to our judgment. It may be admitted that, upon general principles, it would be reasonable to allow such a rule where the amount of gas consumed is so small as to render it unreasonable that the company should furnish a meter and keep it up for so small an amount of business, yet we do not see how a court can write into the contract an additional provision. The agreement of the company is to furnish gas at so much per cubic foot, and that must necessarily mean that all the...