Waterloo Water Co. v. Hoxie

• Decision Date: 14 October 1893
• Citation: 89 Iowa 317,56 N.W. 499
• Parties: WATERLOO WATER CO. v. HOXIE, SHERIFF, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

89 Iowa 317

56 N.W. 499

WATERLOO WATER CO.

v.HOXIE, SHERIFF, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 14, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Black Hawk county; D. J. Lenahan, Judge.

The plaintiff is a corporation located and doing business in the city Waterloo, Iowa, and was incorporated for the purpose of supplying said city with water for public and private purposes for a period of 20 years, by virtue of a contract therewith. By ordinance of the city the plaintiff is permitted, and by its contract it is required, to provide and lay or place all necessary pipes, conduits, mains, and other necessary means to supply water for said city, and to supply and operate the necessary machinery for that purpose. To enable the plaintiff to thus perform its undertaking with the city it is provided by ordinance that it shall have the right to condemn and appropriate private property for the construction and operation of its works under the general laws of the state. In the performance of its contract the plaintiff purchased lot 10, in block 6, in said city, and has located and constructed thereon its buildings, filters, pumps, engines, boilers, and other machinery necessary to furnish the city with water, has laid its mains in the city, and done all other things required of it in the performance of its contract. Of said lot 10 there is a strip in the rear 60 feet in length and 30 feet in width not occupied by the buildings of the plaintiff. The unoccupied part of said lot is adjacent to the depot grounds of the defendant company, which company is about to institute proceedings to condemn a part of said strip or unoccupied land for the purpose of additional depot grounds, and for that purpose application has been made to the railway commissioners under the provisions of the law, and their report has been made to the effect that said land is necessary for additional depot grounds. The defendant Hoxie is sheriff of the county, and this proceeding is in equity to enjoin the defendants from proceeding to summon a jury to assess the damages under condemnation proceedings. A temporary writ of injunction was allowed, which was afterwards, on motion of defendants, dissolved, and from the order dissolving the injunction the plaintiff appealed.Mullan & Pickett and Gardner & McFadon, for appellant.

W. J. Knight and F. C. Platt, for appellees.

GRANGER, J.

The motion to dissolve the injunction was tried upon affidavits in support of questions of fact tending to show the entire situation of the lot and the depot grounds, and the necessity for the plaintiff company to use the strip in question, at present, in the performance of its contract with the public, and also the probability of such use being required by the future growth of the city. Appellees insist that equity will not entertain the suit to determine the merits of the case presented, because the plaintiff has other available remedies to which it should resort, and among them it is urged that the proceeding which it seeks to enjoin affords such a remedy. The particular ground upon which the aid of a court of equity is invoked is that the proceedings to condemn the land are unauthorized, because the land is already devoted to a public use, and, as we understand, that it would be unlawful to proceed to condemn it, even if needed by the railway company. The proposition is one in dispute between the parties, and is to be settled by adjudication. Could it be properly determined in the condemnation proceeding? It seems to us that the question is quite definitely answered in Railway Co. v. Donnell, 77 Iowa, 221, 42 N. W. Rep. 176. Appellant insists that the case is not...