Vinton-roanoke Water Co v. City Of Roanoke
| Decision Date | 03 November 1910 |
| Parties | VINTON-ROANOKE WATER CO. v. CITY OF ROANOKE. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
A water company, which contracts to give a city the free use of necessary water for its public market house, courthouse, and jail, and other public buildings, including buildings for fire companies and public school buildings, need not furnish water free of charge to fish sheds owned by the city and in existence at the time of the contract and leased by the city to individuals who pay rent therefor, especially where the city and the company for several years construed the contract so as not to require the company to furnish such water.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. § 200.*]
The court, in construing an ordinance granting a franchise, must look to the whole ordinance to ascertain the intention of the parties as to a particular subject not specifically and clearly provided for.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 120.*]
An ordinance granting a franchise to a water company, which provides that the company shall furnish, free of charge, water to public buildings, but shall not be put to any expense in constructing and maintaining the pipes, etc., necessary therefor, and furnish free water for troughs for horses and public drinking fountains, so situated as not to necessitate the laying of additional mains, and which provides that the city shall furnish at its own expense the troughs and drinking fountains, and place the same in position, and which binds the company to furnish water, free of charge, to fire hydrants at such points as the city may designate, along streets where the company has laid its mains, but the city shall furnish the fire hydrants at its own expense, requires the company to allow the city to use the water free of charge for fire hydrants, but the city must pay the cost incidental to connecting itself with 'the water mains, and when the company has laid its mains along streets, where the city may connect and use the water, its obligation to the city is discharged.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. § 200.*]
Error to Corporation Court of Roanoke.
Mandamus by the City of Roanoke against the Vinton-Roanoke Water Company. From an order granting relief in part, defendant brings error, and plaintiff assigns cross-error. Reversed and rendered denying the writ and dismissing the petition therefor.
C. A. McHugh, for plaintiff in error.
C. B.Moomaw, for defendant in error.
The Vinton-Roanoke Water Company is a Virginia corporation engaged in the business of supplying water to the city of Roanoke and its inhabitants, under and by virtue of a franchise granted to it by the city for that purpose. This franchise is in the form of an ordinance of the city council, which grants to the water com pany certain rights and imposes upon it certain obligations, among others the duty of furnishing to the city water at certain places free of charge.
This proceeding was instituted by the city, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the water company to furnish the necessary water supply for certain fish sheds free of cost, and to a number of fire hydrants at certain points designated by the city. The order appealed from exonerates the water company from all obligation to furnish the fish sheds with water free of charge, but directs a writ to issue compelling the water company to comply with the demands of the city with respect to the fire hydrants.
Cross-error is assigned to the ruling of the court that the water company was under no obligation to furnish the fish sheds with water free of charge.
We are of opinion that this action of the court was plainly right. It is clear from the record that it was not contemplated by either party that the water company was to furnish water free of charge to the fish sheds in question. The second section of the ordinance, clause 1, provides that the city "shall have the use free of charge of necessary water for its public market house, the courthouse and jail, and for the necessary supply of all other public buildings of said city including buildings for fire companies and public school buildings used by the municipal authorities of said city." The fish sheds were in existence at the time and were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Independence Waterworks Co.
... ... 1231 Lucy Williams, Respondent, v. Independence Water Works Co., Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City May 3, ... Kosmak v. City of New York, 117 N.Y. 361; Vinton ... Roanoke Water Co. v. City of Roanoke, 110 Va. 661, 66 ... S.E. 835; Tobin v ... ...
-
Williams v. Independence Water Works Co.
...478, 61 N.W. 1030; Warren v. Chicago, 118 Ill. 329, 11 N.E. 218; Kosmak v. City of New York, 117 N.Y. 361; Vinton Roanoke Water Co. v. City of Roanoke, 110 Va. 661, 66 S.E. 835; Tobin v. Frankfort Water Co., 158 Ky. 348, 164 S.W. 956; Windish v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 248 Pa. 236, 93 Atl.......
-
Josey v. Beaumont Waterworks Co.
...v. City of New York, 117 N. Y. 361, 22 N. E. 945; Leonhardt v. City of New York (Sup.) 109 N. Y. Supp. 24; Vinton Roanoke Water Co. v. City of Roanoke, 110 Va. 661, 66 S. E. 835; State v. Gosnell, 116 Wis. 606, 93 N. W. 542, 61 L. R. A. 33; Tobin v. Frankfort Water Co., 158 Ky. 348, 164 S. ......
-
City Of Philippi v. Tygarts Valley Water Co
...Sup'rs of Scott County, 109 Va. 34, 63 S. E. 412; Portsmouth Water Co. v. Portsmouth, 112 Va. 158, 70 S. E. 529; Vinton-Roanoke Water Co. v. Roanoke, 110 Va. 661, 66 S. E. 835. The first point made is that the ordinance did not provide for mandamus but for criminal prosecution only in defau......