107 F. 349 | 5th Cir. | 1901
after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The first and most important question for consideration in this case is that raised by the contention that the city, by the construction of waterworks of its own in 1895, violated the contract which it entered into with, the City Water Company in 1882, to the wrong and damage of its successor, the Austin Water, Light & Power Company. The claim is that it was necessarily implied in the terms and provisions of the contract referred to that the city would not itself erect a system of waterworks, and thereby, to a large extent, destroy the value of the property of the City Water Company. Beliance is placed largely, perhaps mainly, on the case of City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U. S. 1, 19 Sup. Ct. 77, 43 L. Ed. 341. Much stress is laid also on the recent case of Southwest Missouri Light Co. v. City of Joplin (decided by Judge Philips, in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Missouri in March, 1900) 101 Fed. 23. In this latter case the pertinent authorities are cited and'reviewed, and in its reasoning and conclusions it' is undeniably favorable to the contentions of the receiver in this case. In the case of City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., supra, there was an express stipulation that the city would not erect waterworks of its own, although it is true that the reasoning of the court and the conclusions reached are not based entirely on this stipulation. We think, however, that the recent case of Bienville Water-Supply Co. v. City of Mobile, 175 U. S. 109, 20 Sup. Ct. 40, 44 L. Ed. 92, being later than the Walla Walla Case, and more like this case in its facts, is more pertinent here. In this latter case the court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in dismissing a bill which set up on behalf of the Bienville Water-Supply Company against the city of Mobile substantially the same facts which are relied upon by the plaintiff here. The "effect of this decision by the supreme court in the case of Bienville Water-Supply Co. v. City of Mobile is emphasized as authority in this case in favor of the right of the city of Austin to erect waterworks of its own by the opinion filed in the circuit court by Judge Toulmin (95 Fed. 539), which opinion was in review in the supreme cqurt, and apparently fully approved. The syllabus of the opinion in the circuit court is as follows:
“A contract between a city and a water company, chartered and given the right to lay its mains in the streets of the city by an act of the legislature which merely bound the company to maintain a certain number of fire hydrants, for which the city agreed to pay a specified rental for a term of years, and fixed a maximum price, beyond which the company agreed it would not charge for water furnished for domestic use during the term, but which contained no grant of any privilege to the company, and no contract for furnishing water to the inhabitants of the city, nor agreement that the city should not do so, is not violated by the erection or purchase of waterworks by the c.ty for the supplying of water to its inhabitants and for its*353 own use, and affords no ground for an injunction to restrain the city from so doing in pursuance of authority contained in its charter: the city not having refused to pay the stipulated rentals.”
But it is not necessary to further elaborate this question, as it is res judicata in this court. In the former opinion in this case (85 Fed. 359), by Judge Pardee, it is said:
“Tlie contract on which this action is based is a grant and privilege for a period of 20 years to the City Water Company to supply water to tlio city of Austin, and the inhabitants thereof, with the right of extension under certain named conditions. The grant is not in terms an exclusive one, and. so far as the language used is concerned, there is nothing to hinder ilie city of Austin from erecting other and competing works, nor from granting to others tlie right to use the streets, nor from contracting with others for the furnishing of more water, as the needs of the city may require. It is very well settled that in contracts with states or municipalities conferring powers, grants, or privileges on private corporations affecting the general rights and interests of the public, the grant or privilege must be clearly conferred; all implications, doubts, and ambiguities being resolved against tlie grant or privilege claimed,”—citing Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Louisa R. Co., 13 How. .71, 81, 14 L. Ed. 55; Rice v. Railroad Co., 1 Black, 358, 380, 17 L. Ed. 147; Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 436, 446, 17 L. Ed. 173; Stein v. Water-Supply Co., 141 U. S. 67, 80, 11 Sup. Ct. 892, 35 L. Ed. 622.
To the same effect is the decision of the supreme court of Texas in City of Austin v. Nalle, 85 Tex. 520, 22 S. W. 668, 960.
We shall adhere to the former ruling of the court on this question, which disposes of the claim of the receiver for general damages against the city for breach of contract.
It is next contended on the part of the receiver that the court erred in refusing to allow him to recover for the 25 hydrants at $50 each. The second clause of the eighth section of the original contract between tbe city of Austin and the City Water Company and its assigns is relied upon as the basis for this claim of rental on the part of the receiver. It is as follows:
“The said city of Austin shall have the right to erect and connect twenty-five fire hydrants, with the main, at any time, under the provisions of this contract, at the expense ol' said water company, and use the same for the prevention and extinguishment of fires, free of charge: provided, always, that the city of Austin shall first pay a rental on the first one hundred (100) hydrants contemplated in this contract.”
It is urged on behalf of the receiver that tliis provision was inserted in the contract for the purpose of inducing and insuring prompt payment of the rent for the 100 hydrants, as this was necessary to enable the water company to erect and maintain the 25 hydrants for which the city was to pay nothing. Hence it is insisted that payment of the rent of the 100 hydrants was a condition precedent to the right of the city to enjoy the free use of the other 25 hydrants. We are of opinion that the receiver cannot claim on behalf of the water company payment for the 100 hydrants, and at the same time demand payment for the 25 hydrants which were to be furnished free on condition that the 100 hydrants were paid for. The receiver could very well demand payment for the 25 hydrants if he was not at the same time insisting on the contract price of the 100 hydrants. We cannot compel compliance with the terms of the contract, and at the same time require that to be done which was stipulated for in the
We come next to the consideration of the exceptions of the city to the right of the plaintiff to recover the rental for 142 hydrants. The verdict in favor of the city was for 100 hydrants at $100 per annum each, and 42 hydrants at $50 per annum each, for the years 1896,1897, and 1898, with interest at 6 per cent, aggregating $39,925. The 100 hydrants were expressly provided for in the contract, by section 6. The 42 hydrants were erected and put in under a provision of section 7 of the contract. These latter hydrants were to be erected as mains were extended, and were to be paid for at the price indicated.
It is first claimed on behalf of the city that it had no power to enter into the contract originally with the City Water Company. The charter of the city of Austin, (article 6, § 7) gives the city authority “to construct water works, gas works, and street railroads within or beyoijd the city limits, or both; to provide the city with water and gas, and to erect hydrants, fire-plugs and pumps in the streets, to erect the necessary machinery, lamp posts, &c. for lighting the city within and beyond the limits of the city, for the convenience of the inhabitants of the city and the environments”; and the twentieth section of the same article empowers the city “to provide for the prevention and extinguishment of fires,” etc. For present purposes it is only necessary to ascertain if the city had authority under these charter provisions to rent hydrants. After giving the city authority to construct waterworks, etc., within or beyond the city limits, or both, comes a semicolon; then the section proceeds: “to provide the city with water and gas, and to erect hydrants, fire-plugs, &c. in the streets”; and then, as if to emphasize that authority more strongly, in the twentieth section it is authorized “to provide for the prevention and extinguishment of fires.” Independently of the general provision of the Revised Statutes of the State of Texas (article 706), we think there can be no question that the charter itself gave the city ample authority to enter into this contract and to carry out the same, so far, certainly, as is material in the present case.
It is next contended for the city that the contract between the city and the City Water Company was not assignable, and that the Austin Water, Light & Power Company consequently was not authorized to execute the same, or to require performance on the part of the city of the terms of the contract. Whatever may have been the merits of this contention, if made at the time of the transfer and sale by the City Water Company to the Austin Water, Light & Power Company, we think it is too late now for the city to raise this question. The sale and transfer was made in June, 1887, and from that time until the 31st of December, 1895, the city accepted performance of this contract from the new company and paid for the water without question. Thus for more than eight years the city acquiesced to the fullest extent in this assignment, and, having allowed the new company during all these years to perform the contract, it cannot now repudiate the new arrangement and claim that it is illegal. If there was
It is agreed as part of the facts in this case that:
“On the 22d of June, 1887, the Austin Water, Light & Power Company, also a domestic corporation of the state of Texas, was incorporated under the general laws of the state of Texas, to exist for a term of fifty years. The purpose of its incorporation was to supply water, electric light, and power to the inhabitants of the city of Austin and its vicinity, for public and private use.” And further: “After the incorporation of the Austin Water, Light & Power Company, and after the establishment by the City Water Company of its said waterworks plant, the said City Water Company, on or about the 28th day of June, 1887, executed certain instruments purporting to sell, convey, transfer, set over, and deliver to the Austin Water, Light & Power Company its waterworks plant, and, all and singular, its property, rights, contracts, privileges, and franchises. That at all times since said date the Austin Water, Light & Power Company, its officers and agents, have exercised dominion and control over the waterworks plant of the City Water Company, and over, all and singular, the property, rights, contracts, privileges, and franchises of the City Water Company; and since said time the City Water Company has had no waterworks plant, equipment, or appliances wherewith to furnish water to the city of Austin or its inhabitants, other than the ones it undertook to convey as above set out.”
It appears, therefore, that the City Water Company transferred to the Austin Water, Light & Power Company its contract with the city of Austin for the rental of hydrants, and that the city acquiesced in this transfer without question, so far as the record shows, and that during all this period, as found by the verdict of the jury, the Austin Water, Light & Power Company complied substantially with its contract with the city to furnish the hydrants with water. It makes a clear case of consent on the part of the city to the transfer of the contract, and a consent which we think is binding. It is urged, however, that this contract is not one which could be enforced against the city, unless it could be also enforced against the water, light and power company, and that the company is not bound by, and could not be held to a compliance with, the contract. We do not think this is true. The new company purchased from the old company its property, rights, contracts, privileges, and franchises, and went forward at once to carry out the contract with the city. We see no reason whatever for the claim that the obligations of this transferee company and the city were not correlative. If, as we believe, under the facts in the case, the city can he required to pay for the water, we think the Austin Water, Light & Power Company could be required to furnish it. The case of Fergus Falls Water Co. v. City of Fergus Falls (O. C.) 65 Fed. 587, was a suit for the rent of hydrants, and is interesting in connection with the question raised here. One sentence in that decision is exceedingly appropriate, as follows: “The law does not favor the idea that a man shall abide by a contract when it is advantageous to him, and repudiate it when it becomes irksome.”
The contract between the city and the City Water Company gave
Other errors are assigned, which need not be considered, for the reason that the case is controlled and must be determined on the undisputed facts and the law applicable thereto, as has been indicated. The judgment of the circuit court was right, and should be affirmed.