Griffin v. Goldsboro Water Co.

Citations

• 30 S.E. 319
• 122 N.C. 206
• 41 L.R.A. 240
• 1898 N.C. LEXIS 226

Syllabus

<p>Corporation — City Franchise — Water Companies— Bates — Uniformity of Bates — Injunction.</p> <p>1. Where a corporation operates under a franchise by which it enjoys the benefit of the right of eminent domain, it is affected with a public use and must, to the extent of the public interest therein, submit to be controlled by the public.</p> <p>2. While the right of fixing rates is a legislative function it is nevertheless competent for the Courts, certainly in the absence of legislative regulations, to protect the public against the exaction of oppressive and unreasonable charges by a corporation enjoying a municipal franchise.</p> <p>3. The acceptance of a municipal franchise by a water company carries with it the dirty of supplying water to all persons along the lines of its mains without discrimination and at uniform rates.</p> <p>4. While a town has a right to grant a franchise to a water company, and the water company has the power to stipulate that it will not charge in excess of the maximum rates named in the ordinance granting the franchise, yet, if such maximum rates are disciminat-ing or unreasonable, they are not binding upon consumers whom the Courts will protect against unreasonable charges.</p> <p>5. Whore, in the hearing of a motion to dissolve an order restraining a water company from exacting from the plaintiffs rates alleged to be unreasonable and discriminating, the answer admitted that the proposed rates were not uniform but denied that they were unreasonable and oppressive, and the evidence as to the unreasonableness of the «rajes yras not satisfactory, it was not error to continue the injunction to the hearing.</p>