National Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City
Decision Date | 02 July 1894 |
Docket Number | 470.,469 |
Citation | 62 F. 853 |
Parties | NATIONAL WATERWORKS CO. v. KANSAS CITY. KANSAS CITY v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
The contract sought to be enforced was created under an ordinance of the defendant city passed pursuant to provisions of an act of the general assembly of Missouri approved March 24, 1873 (Laws Mo. 1873, p. 286, Secs. 1, 22), as follows:
Under authority granted by this law, the city, by an ordinance approved October 27, 1873, and ratified by a vote of the people on November 15, 1873, and taking effect on the latter date, granted to the National Waterworks Company a right to erect and operate waterworks. The ordinance contained the following provisions:
The company's bill, filed December 26, 1891, recited said act and ordinance, and alleged that under the contract thereby created the company completed the works for operation as required, and that they were duly accepted by the city; that the city adopted another ordinance in February, 1877, whereby certain litigation between it and the company was settled and certain changes were made in the original ordinance; that on the 25th day of May, 1878, the city, by a certificate signed by its mayor and the president of the common council, did certify that said company was operating its works to the satisfaction of the city; that the city adopted another ordinance in August, 1861, whereby the contract was further changed; that the company had kept and performed all the conditions, covenants, premises, and agreements on its part, and that it would at all times be ready, able, and willing to do so; that the company had expended large sums of money in building the works; and that in order to do so it has issued its bonds in the aggregate of $3,000,000, secured by mortgages covering the waterworks plant; that the ordinances aforesaid, and contrary to equity and good conscience, and with the intent and purpose to wreck the company's said waterworks in said city, to destroy the value thereof, and to render valueless to the bondholders of said bonds the security therefor mentioned in the mortgages referred to, and to impair the obligations of said city under said several contracts so entered into by it as aforesaid, and that with this intent and purpose, the said city falsely pretended that the ordinances aforesaid and the contract embodied therein, were not in force, and were no longer binding and obligatory upon said defendant, and particularly that said defendant was not and would not be bound either to purchase said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spring Val. Water Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
... ... * * otherwise than as so established, shall forfeit' its ... 'franchise and waterworks * * * to the city and county * ... * * for the public use.' ... The ... water rates so ... Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U.S ... 362, 399, 14 Sup.Ct. 1047, 38 L.Ed. 1014; Cotting v. Kansas ... City Stockyards Co., 183 U.S. 79, 87, 22 Sup.Ct. 30, 46 L.Ed ... 92; Cons. Gas Co. v. New ... the rule stated as follows, in San Diego Land Co. v ... National City, 174 U.S. 739, 757, 19 Sup.Ct. 804, 43 ... L.Ed. 1154, has been uniformly approved: ... ...
-
Murray v. Public Utilities Commission
... ... valid, existing franchise to operate his utility in the city ... of Pocatello, and that the commission did not err in refusing ... to ... ( Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S ... 113, 24 L.Ed. 77; State v. Kansas City R. R. Co., 32 ... F. 722; North Carolina Corp. Commission v ... 371, 59 A. 537, 539; ... Spring Valley Waterworks Co. v. San Francisco, 192 ... F. 137; National Waterworks Co. v. Kansas ... ...
-
City of Pocatello v. Murray
... ... States by a municipal corporation against M., who was ... maintaining and operating a waterworks system within the ... municipality, praying that the court "fix and promulgate ... reasonable ... compensation. ( San Diego etc. Co. v. National City, ... 74 F. 79, 174 U.S. 739, 19 S.Ct. 804, 43 L.Ed. 1154; ... Palatka Waterworks v. City ... 1907." (Pocatello v. Murray, 173 F. 382; National ... Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City, 62 F. 853, 10 C. C. A ... 653, 27 L. R. A. 827; Santa Ana Water Co. v. San ... ...
-
Cardle v. Indianapolis Water Co 16 19, 1926
...Denver v. Denver Union Water Co., 246 U. S. 178, 191, 192, 38 S. Ct. 278, 62 L. Ed. 649. And see National Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City, 62 F. 853, 865, 10 C. C. A. 653, 27 L. R. A. 827; Omaha v. Omaha Water Co., 218 U. S. 180, 202, 203, 30 S. Ct. 615, 54 L. Ed. 991, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108......