Wood v. Denver City Waterworks Co.

Decision Date29 October 1894
Citation38 P. 239,20 Colo. 253
PartiesWOOD et al. v. DENVER CITY WATERWORKS CO. et al.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to district court, Arapahoe county.

Petition by L. H. Wood, Frank M. Hosford, G. A. Breon, J. E. Bussy Theodore H. Thomas, A. H. Warren, J. E. Breon E. A. Kent, S S. Kennedy, and F. L. McFarland to intervene in an action by the Denver City Waterworks Company against the Citizens' Water Company for an injunction restraining the latter from interfering with its exclusive franchise. A temporary injunction had issued, for violation of which the defendant company had been held guilty of contempt of court, whereupon the above-named petitioning citizens asserted their right to become parties, for the purpose of contesting plaintiff's claim to an exclusive franchise. On an order denying leave to file their petition, they bring error. Reversed.

The complaint on which the injunction was applied for (omitting formal parts) was as follows: 'That both plaintiff and defendant are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado, for the purpose of supplying the city of Denver, and towns adjacent thereto, and the inhabitants thereof, with water for fire, domestic, and other purposes. That heretofore, and on, to wit, the 13th day of January, A. D. 1888, the town of Highlands, by its duly-authorized and acting authorities, entered into a certain contract with the Beaver Brook Water Company, the predecessor of the plaintiff herein, as will hereinafter more fully appear, and in and by which said contract it was provided, among other things, as follows, to wit: 'That for and in consideration of the agreements and covenants hereinafter mentioned, to be kept, done, and performed by the party of the second part, the party of the first part doth hereby grant unto the party of the second part the sole and exclusive right to construct and erect waterworks, and lay all necessary pipes, mains, and conduits under and along the streets, alleyways, bridges, and avenues within the corporate limits of the said town of Highlands, for the purpose of supplying the said town and the inhabitants thereof with water for fire, domestic, and other purposes, for the full period of twenty years, from the twenty-fourth day of December, A. D. 1886.' That thereafter, and on, to wit the first Tuesday in April, A. D. 1888, the question of the ratifying of the said contract so made between the town of Highlands, by its board of trustees, and the said the Beaver Brook Water Company, was duly submitted to the qualified voters of said town of Highlands, and a majority of the voters of said town, voting upon said question at said general election, duly voted to approve the same; and that the said contract has since said date been in full force and effect, and is so in full force and effect at the present time. That thereafter, and on or about the 3d day of February, A. D. 1891, the said the Beaver Brook Water Company duly sold, assigned, transferred, and set over unto the plaintiff herein all of its property, both real and personal together with all rights, privileges, and franchises including the said contract, with the said town of Highlands hereinbefore referred to; and that the said sale, assignment and transfer of the said property to the plaintiff, so far as the same pertained to the said contract between the said town of Highlands and the said the Beaver Brook Water Company, was thereafter, and on, to wit, the said 3d day of February, A. D. 1891, duly ratified and approved at a regular meeting of the board of trustees of the said town of Highlands, by an ordinance duly ratifying and confirming the said sale and transfer upon certain conditions in said ordinance contained; and that, since the said sale, assignment and transfer to the plaintiff herein, the plaintiff hath in all matters and things fully complied with the terms and conditions of the said contract; and that the same is at the present time in full force and effect. That heretofore, and on, to wit, the 4th day of March, A. D. 1890, the board of trustees of the said town of Highlands, by a certain ordinance passed on that date, authorized and permitted the defendant herein, the Citizens' Water Company, to construct a certain line of pipe through the said town of Highlands, upon two certain streets of said town, known as 'Ashland Avenue' and the 'Boulevard.' That the said streets, through which the said line of pipe was so authorized to be constructed by the said the Citizens' Water Company, are two of the most populous and thickly-inhabited streets of said town, and a large portion of the business houses and residences of said town being upon said line of pipe and water main; but plaintiff further alleges that it was provided in and by the said ordinance so granting such privilege to the said the Citizens' Water Company as follows (section 4): 'Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as permitting the said the Citizens' Water Company to furnish any water to any of the inhabitants of the town of Highlands, or in any manner interfere with the rights and privileges of the Beaver Brook Water Company, or with its contract between the town of Highlands and the Beaver Brook Water Company, or with any drain, water, or other pipe now laid in any of the streets of said town.' And plaintiff alleges that the said line of pipe and water main of the Citizens' Water Company was so laid down and constructed under the authority and permission granted in and by the said ordinance, and not otherwise; and that the said line of water main and pipe is at the present time so laid down and constructed. Plaintiff further alleges that heretofore, and on, to wit, the ___ day of _____, A. D. 1891, the plaintiff commenced its certain action herein for a writ of injunction against the board of trustees and the mayor of the town of Highlands, praying for a writ of injunction enjoining and restraining the said authorities of the said town of Highlands from entering into any contract or agreement whatsoever with the said the Citizens' Water Company for supplying the said town, or the citizens thereof, or any part or portion thereof, with water for any purpose whatsoever, by resolution, ordinance, or in any way or manner authorizing, permitting, or consenting to the said the Citizens' Water Company furnishing or supplying water to the said town, or to the inhabitants thereof, or to any part or portion thereof until the further order of the court in the premises; and that upon said date this honorable court, by its order to that effect, duly ordered the issuance of a temporary writ of injunction and restraining order, as prayed in said bill of complaint; and that the same was duly served upon the said parties designated therein as defendants. That thereafter a motion in said cause was duly made by the defendants therein to dissolve the said temporary writ of injunction and restraining order, which said motion, coming on duly to be heard in this honorable court, was, after a full hearing thereof, and argument of counsel thereon, and due deliberation by the court thereon, overruled and denied, and the said injunction so issued by this honorable court is at the present time in full force and effect and virtue. That notwithstanding that, in and by the said action of this honorable court, the said town and the authorities thereof are absolutely enjoined from authorizing or permitting the said the Citizens' Water Company to supply any of the inhabitants or citizens of the said town with water for any purpose whatsoever, and that notwithstanding the fact that the said the Citizens' Water Company, in and by the permission granted to it to lay down and construct said line of water main, contracted and agreed that it would not in any way or manner interfere with the rights of the plaintiff and of the Beaver Brook Water Company to supply the said town and its inhabitants with water, and that it was not permitted by said ordinance to furnish any water to any of the inhabitants of the said town of Highlands, yet, nevertheless, plaintiff alleges the truth to be that the said the Citizens' Water Company, as well as the authorities of said town, are attempting to evade the force and effect of the writ of injunction so issued herein, and to that end the said defendants in said cause, through the advice and procurement of the said the Citizens' Water Company, as plaintiff is informed and believes, on, to wit, the 13th day of April A. D. 1891, at a meeting of the said board of trustees of said town of Highlands, duly adopted the following resolution, to wit: 'Resolved, that a permit be, and is hereby, given and granted to the residents and property owners along the line of the Citizens' Water Company, on the Boulevard and Ashland avenue, to dig trenches in and through the said Boulevard and Ashland avenue for the purpose of discovering the water mains of the said Citizens' Water Company; provided, the said residents enter into a good and sufficient bond, indemnifying the town for any accidents that may be occasioned thereby.' And plaintiff alleges the truth to be that one of the grounds upon which plaintiff's original application for an injunction against the said town of Highlands was granted, and one of the reasons assigned by this honorable court in overruling the said motion to dissolve the said injunction as to why the said injunction should be maintained, was that it is not proposed by the said the Citizens' Water Company to supply all of the inhabitants of the said town with water, but only such portions thereof as have their residences and places of business immediately adjacent to the said line of water mains so already constructed by them, and that the same, if it was permitted to be done, would result in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Cornhusker Electric Company v. City of Fairbury
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1936
    ... ... 407, 92 N.W. 798; Smith v. Gale, ... 144 U.S. 509, 36 L.Ed. 521, 12 S.Ct. 674; Wood v. Denver ... City Water Works Co., 20 Colo. 253, 38 P. 239; Cache ... La Poudre Irrigating Ditch ... ...
  • Cornhusker Elec. Co. v. City of Fairbury
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1936
    ...923;Dickson v. Dows, 11 N.D. 407, 92 N.W. 798;Smith v. Gale, 144 U.S. 509, 12 S.Ct. 674, 36 L.Ed. 521;Wood v. Denver City Water Works Co., 20 Colo. 253, 38 P. 239, 46 Am.St.Rep. 288;Cache La Poudre Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Hawley, 43 Colo. 32, 95 P. 317;Day v. Bullen, 127 Ill.App. 155;Wightm......
  • Nisbet v. Sigel-Campion Live Stock Com'n Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1912
    ... ... Denied April 8, 1912 ... Appeal ... from District Court, City and County of Denver; Geo. W ... Allen, Judge ... Action ... 316, 18 P. 33; Curtis v. Lathrop, 12 Colo. 169, 20 ... P. 250; Wood v. Waterworks Co., 20 Colo. 253, 38 P. 239, 46 ... Am.St.Rep. 288; ... ...
  • Atlantic Refining Co. v. Port Lobos Petroleum Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • March 30, 1922
    ... ... Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del., and Winthrop Dwight, of New ... York City, for defendants ... Andrew ... C. Gray and Herbert H. Ward, ... The ... same court in Wood v. Denver City Waterworks Co., 20 ... Colo. 253, 38 P. 239, 46 Am.St.Rep ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT