City of La Follette v. La Follette Water, Light & Telephone Co.

Sixth Circuit

City of La Follette v. La Follette Water, Light & Telephone Co.

252 F. 762, 164 C.C.A. 602, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1918

DocketNo. 3115

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 252 F. 762 (City of La Follette v. La Follette Water, Light & Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of La Follette v. La Follette Water, Light & Telephone Co., 252 F. 762, 164 C.C.A. 602, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133 (6th Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The view we take of the merits of the case makes it unnecessary to consider appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appellants waived their right thereto by accepting the benefits of the terms of the decree in their favor, imposed on ap-pellee as conditions of granting it relief.

After careful consideration of the record, and of the able and thorough briefs and arguments of counsel, we are convinced that Judge [776]*776Sanford made an eminently proper disposition of the case. His painstaking discussion of both the testimony and the applicable law make extended discussion on our part unnecessary.

In our opinion, and for the reasons stated by Judge Sanford, the ordinance contract is valid and enforceable, so far at least as it is involved here; that is to say, so far as it relates to the city’s contract in its proprietary capacity for a public supply of water and light; and this is as far as we have any occasion to consider.

Upon the equities we think appellants have no' ground of complaint. We are impressed that the record will not justify further modification of the contract than provided by the decree with respect to hydrants and lights; that the increased storage capacity and the chemical treatment installed have rendered the water supply reasonably pure and wholesome; and that the retention of the cause upon the docket under subdivision (e) of paragraph 11 of the opinion affords additional and reasonable assurance against future danger to health.

The decree of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The view we take of the merits of the case makes it unnecessary to consider appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appellants waived their right thereto by accepting the benefits of the terms of the decree in their favor, imposed on ap-pellee as conditions of granting it relief.

After careful consideration of the record, and of the able and thorough briefs and arguments of counsel, we are convinced that Judge [776]*776Sanford made an eminently proper disposition of the case. His painstaking discussion of both the testimony and the applicable law make extended discussion on our part unnecessary.

In our opinion, and for the reasons stated by Judge Sanford, the ordinance contract is valid and enforceable, so far at least as it is involved here; that is to say, so far as it relates to the city’s contract in its proprietary capacity for a public supply of water and light; and this is as far as we have any occasion to consider.

Upon the equities we think appellants have no' ground of complaint. We are impressed that the record will not justify further modification of the contract than provided by the decree with respect to hydrants and lights; that the increased storage capacity and the chemical treatment installed have rendered the water supply reasonably pure and wholesome; and that the retention of the cause upon the docket under subdivision (e) of paragraph 11 of the opinion affords additional and reasonable assurance against future danger to health.

The decree of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F. 762, 164 C.C.A. 602, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-la-follette-v-la-follette-water-light-telephone-co-ca6-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack