Skip to main content
· 3/4/1918

City and County of Denver v. Denver Union Water Co.

Citations

  • 246 U.S. 178
  • 38 S. Ct. 278
  • 62 L. Ed. 649
  • 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1532

Syllabus

<p>The findings of a special master appointed, with consent of parties, to take the testimony and report it with his findings of fact and conclusions of law for the advisement of the District Court, are not conclusive but subject to review by that court upon exceptions.</p> <p>Where a master, so. appointed, had heard the issues fully and admitted all proffered evidence, and the exceptions to his findings raised no serious questions of fact, this court found it unnecessary to remand the case to the District Court because the latter, erroneously, declined to pass , upon the exceptions, but, having before it the evidence and all matters necessary for judgment, proceeded to do what that court should have done — considered the report, passed upon the exceptions, and made such decree as was deemed equitable.</p> <p>Where a city was peculiarly dependent upon the continued use of the plant of a water company whose franchise had expired, the situation negativing the idea that other means were presently procurable or in contemplation for supplying the water vital to the community, and an ordinance was passed which, by its enacting provisions, not only fixed the rates which the company might charge in future but in addition provided for collecting charges semi-annually in advance for various uses which could not be discontinued on brief notice, required installation of meters for all prospective users, to be paid for monthly, and of hydrants to be ordered thereafter by the city upon extended as well as existing mains, at an annual rental, and imposed fines upon the company or its agents for any violation of the ordinance, held, that these provisions were inconsistent with declarations in the preamble characterizing the company as a tenant by sufferance and disclaiming any intention to recognize its right to occupy the streets or continue the service; and that the ordinance should be construed liberally, so as to preserve the substantial rights of both parties, viz: as recogniz

Judges: Brandeis, Clarke, Holmes, Pitney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.