Williams v. Mutual Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1884 |
| Citation | 52 Mich. 499,18 N.W. 236 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. MUTUAL GAS CO. |
A gas company is a corporation in the enjoyment of certain rights and privileges under the state statutes and city charter, and is bound to furnish the citizens with gas, in localities where its pipes extend, under reasonable conditions.
The requirement of a deposit of money to guaranty the payment of the price of the gas used is not an unreasonable one, and the company may discontinue furnishing the gas unless complied with.
Error to superior court of Detroit.
F.A Baker, for plaintiff and appellant.
Meddaugh Driggs & Harmon, for defendant.
The plaintiff, in the month of November, 1879, resided in Detroit, and was in possession of and keeping the hotel known as the Biddle House, containing a very large number of rooms all of which were furnished with gas-pipes and fixtures for the purpose of lighting the same, and which had been so lighted for many years. The defendant corporation was duly organized under the act of the legislature for the formation of gas-light companies, approved February 12 1855, and located in Detroit. On the fifteenth day of November aforesaid, the defendant, in pursuance of said act of the legislature, and the charter and by-laws of Detroit was, and had been for some time previous, carrying on the business for which it was organized, supplying the citizens at hotels and private dwellings with gas in such quantities as desired, and among others had connected its pipes with those of the Biddle House, and for some time previous had been supplying it with gas as its proprietors desired. On that day the defendant refused to supply the Biddle House longer unless its proprietor, the plaintiff, would keep on deposit with the company $100. It was receiving at that time about $60 worth of gas per week, and its requirements were increasing. The defendant regarding the demand as unreasonable, declined to make the required deposit, and tendered the defendant $75, and demanded that the company should furnish him gas at the Biddle House to that amount. This the defendant refused to do and cut off the service at the hotel. The plaintiff claims that it was the defendant's duty to furnish him with the gas required, and upon the terms demanded; that he has suffered great injury to his business in consequence of the defendant's neglect so to do. And brings his suit in this case to recover his damages. A trial was had in the superior court of Detroit, and the judge directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff brings error, and the case is now before us on a bill of exceptions containing all the testimony.
The questions presented and argued before the judge of the supreme court by counsel for defendent were,--First, the plaintiff could not recover for the reason the defendant was under no legal duty or obligation to supply any citizen of Detroit with gas; and, second, if such duty was imposed upon the defendant, the conditions upon which the defendant proposed and offered to perform it were reasonable. The court disagreed with defendant's counsel in the first position, but sustained them in the second. I agree with the judge of the superior court that it is the duty of the defendant, upon reasonable conditions, to supply the citizens of Detroit who have their residences and places of business east of the center of Woodward avenue with gas, wherever the defendant has connected its mains and service pipes with the pipes and fixtures used at such residences and places of business and the owners or occupants shall desire the same.
The defendant is a corporation, in the enjoyment of certain rights and privileges, under the statutes of the state and charter and by-laws of the city, and derived therefrom, These rights and privileges were granted that corresponding duties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial