Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co.
Citations
- 172 U.S. 1
- 19 S. Ct. 77
- 43 L. Ed. 341
- 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1637
Syllabus
<p>By an act of November 28, 1883, the legislature of Washington Territory incorporated the city of Walla Walla, conferring upon it, among other powers, the power to provide a sufficient supply of water for the city, and the right to permit the use of the city streets for the purpose of laying pipes for furnishing such supply for a term not exceeding twenty-five years. The act contained a further provision fixing the limit of indebtedness of the city at fifty thousand dollars. The city, under this authority, by contract granted 'to the Walla Walla Water Company the right to lay and maintain water mains, etc., for twenty-five years, reserving to itself the right to maintain fire hydrants and to flush sewers during this term, each without charge. The contract further provided that it was voidable by the city, so far as it required the payment of money, upon the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, whenever there should be a substantial failure of such supply, or a like failure on the part of the company to pei'form its agreements, and that, until the contract should have been so avoided, the city should not erect, or maintain, or become interested in other water works. These provisions were accepted by the Water Company, and were complied with by it, and the contract was in force when this bill was filed. In 1893 the city authorities passed an ordinance to provide for the construction of a system of water works to supply the city with water, and' to issue bonds for that purpose to the amount of one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, which ordinance was accepted by the necessary majority of legal voters. The Water Company then filed its bill to enjoin the city from creating the proposed water works, or from expending city moneys for that purpose, or from issuing city securities therefor. To this bill the city demurred, resting its demurrer upon a want of jurisdiction, all parties on both sides being citizens of the State of Washington. Held:</p> <p>(1) That
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- city's promise not to compete with franchisee does not run afoul of statutory prohibition on exclusive franchises and may not be impaired by subsequent legislative enactment
- city’s promise not to compete with franchisee does not run afoul of statutory prohibition on exclusive franchises and may not be impaired by subsequent legislative enactment
- where “the damage be of such a nature that it cannot be adequately compensated by an action at law, or is such as, from its continuance, to occasion a constantly recurring grievance,” injunctive relief is available
- “But where a contract ... is innocuous in itself, and is carried out with due regard to the good order of the city and the health of its inhabitants, the [city] cannot ... abrogate or impair it”
- “the remedy at law, in order to exclude a concurrent remedy at equity, must be as complete, as practical, and as efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration, as the remedy in equity.”
- “But where a contract . . . is innocuous in itself, and is carried out with due regard to the good order of the city and the health of its inhabitants, the [city] cannot . . . abrogate or impair it.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brown, After Stating the Case
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.