Alabama Power Co. v. City of Eufaula

168 So. 661, 232 Ala. 473, 1936 Ala. LEXIS 280
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 4, 1936
Docket4 Div. 883.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 So. 661 (Alabama Power Co. v. City of Eufaula) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alabama Power Co. v. City of Eufaula, 168 So. 661, 232 Ala. 473, 1936 Ala. LEXIS 280 (Ala. 1936).

Opinion

*474 BROWN, Justice.

The bill as last amended seeks to establish and enforce an equitable mortgage on the physical properties — the gas plant and the electric power and lighting plant in the city of Eufaula' — now the property of the Alabama Power Company, but previously belonging to complainant, and have the same sold to satisfy a claim predicated on an alleged breach of a certain contract between complainant and Foy & Shemwell, a partnership composed of J. E. Foy, Jr., and Dermot Shemwell, entered into on July 26, 1919, in the first paragraph of which it was stipulated: “That Foy & Shemwell hereby contract and agree to take over the Electric Plant and Distribution System, transmission lines, and everything pertaining to and incident to the Electric Plant and Gas Plant complete, of said city, and the real estate appertaining thereto, at its appraised value, said appraised value to be reached by an engineer to be named by said Foy & Shemwell, and an engineer to be named by said city; and in the event the said engineers so named cannot agree upon the appraised value, the two engineers so named shall select a third engineer, and the appraised value as agreed upon by the majority of said engineers shall be the appraised value of said property; that said Foy & Shemwell agree and contract to assume and retire the Electric Light Bonds of said city, with the interest thereon, at the appraised value of said property; and the said city in consideration of the foregoing hereby contracts and agrees to deliver to the said Foy & Shemwell, by proper conveyances, all of its electric lighting system and gas system in consideration of the foregoing and the other considerations herein set out in said contract.”

The second paragraph of the contract “granted unto” said partnership an “electrical and gas franchise.” for a period of twenty years, with the usual rights incident thereto, and stipulated that: “Said City exempting from all classes of municipal tax said property set out herein for the period of this contract, and exempting the operators and overseers of said plant as hereinbefore set out, from all license or privilege municipal taxes for the period of this contract.”

The third paragraph provided that the partnership should furnish to the city a continuous supply of electricity for municipal purposes at a fixed rate.

Paragraph 4 provided for the character of electricity to be generated and where it should be delivered.

The fifth paragraph stipulated: “The said Foy & Shemwell agree to deliver electrical energy for the purpose of lighting the business houses, storehouses, and domestic lighting, to the consumer from one cent to 12^5 per kilowatt hour, based upon monthly consumption as per scale of rates designated hereinafter domestic rates, and from one to ten horse motor power to the consumer per kilowatt hour, based upon scale of rates designated hereinafter Special Motor Loads from one to ten horsepower, not to exceed 12^ per kilowatt hour” [Then follow the tables for “Domestic Rate Monthly Consumption” and “Special Motor Loads from one to ten horse-power.”] “But . the said Foy & Shemwell agree to pay to said city two cents per kilowatt hour on all lighting used by the consumer, vohich is designated and known as Domestic Lighting; and said Foy & Shemwell further agree to pay said city 1<¡¡ per Kilowatt Hour on all special motor loads hereinbefore designated from one to ten horse-power; the said amounts to be so paid by the said Foy & Shemwell to said city, to be based upon meter readings, vohich shall at all times be open to said city, and the said Foy & Shemwell further agree to furnish said city monthly, an itemized statement showing the amount of Kilowatt Hours used per month for domestic lighting or purposes, and for special motor loads from one to ten horsepower, and the books of the said Foy & Shemwell in so far as the same relate to domestic kilowatt hours and special motor kilowatt hours, from one to ten horse-power, shall be open for inspection by the city *475 at least quarterly of each year.” (Italics applied.)

In the fifteenth paragraph it was stipulated that: “The said Foy & Shemwell agree to execute to the City of Eufaula, a bond of a sufficient amount, payable to the City, conditioned upon its faithful performance, in the retiring of the bonds of the City, as agreed ’ upon in this contract, said bonds to be approved by the Mayor and Town Council of the City of Eufaula.”

The other stipulations in said contract are not material to the question in hand.

The bill alleges that said Foy & Shem-well took over and began to operate said properties in May, 1920, and continued to operate the same until February, 1925, but “failed to render a true and correct accounting of the reading of meters, and failed to pay over to the City of Eufaula 24 per kilowatt hour, on all light used by the consumers in the City of Eufaula, designated and known as domestic lighting, and failed to pay over to the City of Eufaula 14 per kilowatt hour on all motor loads from one to ten (1 to 10) horse-power as therein provided; that the said Foy & Shemwell owes to the said City of Eufaula as part of the contract price of said electric light and power system and franchise of the City of Eufaula, above set forth, a large sum of money, accruing by reason of the two -and one cent (24 and 1$) respectively, above set out. Plaintiff avers that the said Foy & Shemwell were to pay same based upon meter readings to be made by them, and to furnish 'the City monthly an itemized statement showing the amount of kilowatt hours used per month for domestic lighting purposes, and for special motor loads from one to ten (1 to 10) horse-power, and to pay to it the respective sums as part of the ptirchase price of said system.” (Italics supplied.)

Foy & Shemwell did not consummate the purchase of the property, but assigned their contract to “Georgia-Alabama Utilities, Incorporated,” and said corporation undertook to carry out and perform said contract, and in September, 1924, procured the passage of a resolution by the city council submitting to the qualified voters the question of whether or not the city should sell said plants to said corporation. The election was held and the sale approved, and the city council passed an ordinance empowering the mayor and clerk, in the name of the city, to execute a deed to the purchaser. In said ordinance it was provided:

“Section 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Eufaula v. Alabama Power Co.
171 So. 368 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 So. 661, 232 Ala. 473, 1936 Ala. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-power-co-v-city-of-eufaula-ala-1936.