Salt River Valley Canal Co. v. Nelssen

Citations

• 10 Ariz. 9
• 85 P. 117
• 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Waters — Irrigation—Service.—Principles announced in Gould, r. Maricopa Canal Co., 8 Ariz. 429, 76 Pac. 598, and in Slosser v. Salt Miner Valley Canal Co., 7 Ariz. 376, 65 Pac. 332, as modified in Gould v. Maricopa Canal Co., reaffirmed.</p> <p>2. Same — Reasonable Rates. — There rests upon a public-serviee corporation, so long as it uses its franchise, a duty to render to the public at a reasonable rate, the services for which it was created.</p> <p>3. Same — Judicial Inquiry. — Whether rates which have been charged for its services by a public-service corporation are unreasonable, is a proper subject for judicial inquiry.</p> <p>4. Same — Recovery oe Excessive Rate Paid. — Whore statutes do not define a maximum lawful rate for the services of a public-service corporation, if prices are exacted which, in the light of all the facts to be considered, are unreasonably high, one who pays such prices under protest, or under such circumstances as do not amount to acquiescence in the charge, may by suit recover the excess over a reasonable price.</p> <p>5. Same — Evidence.—What is a reasonable price is, in such a suit, a fact to be proved as other facts are proved.</p> <p>6. Same. — Tn determining what is sueh reasonable rate, the effect of the rate upon persons to whom the services are rendered is as important a factor as is the effect thereof upon the profits of the corporation.</p> <p>7. Same — Injunction.—A decree perpetually enjoining an irrigation canal company from preventing the flow of water through its canals upon the lands of an .appropriator of water, subject to the payment of the company’s reasonable charges, and to its reasonable regulations, should also make such water service subject to the prior rights of any prior appropriators served by the company.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>