Watauga Water Co. v. Wolfe

• Decision Date: 25 September 1897
• Citation: 41 S.W. 1060
• Parties: WATAUGA WATER CO. v. WOLFE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

41 S.W. 1060

WATAUGA WATER CO. v. WOLFE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September 25, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; H. T. Campbell, Judge.

Action by C. H. Wolfe against the Watauga Water Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. H. Carr and E. C. Reeves, for appellant.

CALDWELL, J.

C. H. Wolfe brought this suit against the Watauga Water Company, and obtained judgment before the circuit judge, sitting without a jury, for $10 as damages for its refusal to furnish him water at his residence in Johnson City. The company appealed in error. The defendant is a water company, chartered under the general laws of the state (Shannon's Code, §§ 2499-2506) with the right of eminent domain and all essential powers, privileges, and franchises, and operating its waterworks at Johnson City under special contract with that city to furnish it and its inhabitants with water at designated rates. Being thus endowed by the state, and under contract with one of the state's municipalities, the company is essentially a public corporation in contradistinction to a private corporation. It is engaged in a public business, under a public grant and contract, and is, therefore, charged with public duties, and cannot, at its election, and without good reason, serve one member of the community, and not another. It is bound to furnish the commodity which it was created to supply to the city and all of its inhabitants upon the terms designated in its contract (the same being fair and reasonable), and without discrimination. Crumley v. Water Co., 99 Tenn. 420,41 S. W. 1058; Haugen v. Water Co. (Or.) 28 Pac. 244; American Waterworks Co. v. State (Neb.) 64 N. W. 711; State v. Butte City Water Co. (Mont.) 44 Pac. 966; Central Union Tel. Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 206, 19 N. E. 604; Lumbard v. Stearns, 4 Cush. 60; Lowell v. City of Boston, 111 Mass. 464; Williams v. Gas Co., 52 Mich. 499, 18 N. W. 236; Olmsted v. Proprietors 47 N. J. Law, 333; Shepard v. Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539; Waterworks v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347, 4 Sup. Ct. 48; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light, etc., Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252; Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gaslight Co., 115 U. S. 683, 6 Sup. Ct. 265; 2 Mor. Priv. Corp. § 1129; 2 Cook, Stock, Stockh. & Corp. Law, § 932; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 52, note, citing Foster v. Fowler, 60 Pa. St. 27; 29 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 19; note to City of Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co. (Ind. Sup.) 15 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 322 (s. c. 28 N. E. 853). Though impressed with a public use, and under legal obligation to furnish water to all inhabitants at the designated rates, and without discrimination, the defendant company is allowed to adopt reasonable rules for the conduct of its business and operation of its plant; and such rules, so far as they affect its patrons, are binding upon them, and may be enforced by the company, even to the extent of denying water to those who refuse to comply with them. American Waterworks Co. v. State (Neb.) 64 N. W. 711.

Wolfe had been a patron of the company, and had been accustomed to leave his hydrant open, so that large quantities of the escaping water went to waste. His claim was that the water so wasted was stale, and not fit for his use, and upon that ground ...