Inland Utilities Co. v. Schell

285 P. 771, 87 Colo. 73
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJanuary 6, 1930
DocketNo. 12,452.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 P. 771 (Inland Utilities Co. v. Schell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Inland Utilities Co. v. Schell, 285 P. 771, 87 Colo. 73 (Colo. 1930).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the court.

Dependants in error, residents, citizens, electors and *74 taxpayers in the incorporated town of Burlington, Colorado, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, sued plaintiffs in error, in .equity, to enjoin the transfer by the town of Burlington to the Inland Utilities Company of its electric power system and the granting of a twenty-five year franchise to operate the same.

The complaint alleges that the electric system is an essential part of the waterworks of the town of Burlington; that the electric power is used for the pumping’ of water for town purposes; that without the power unit, the waterworks system is useless, there being no other method of furnishing water to the town than by pumping; that on May 6, 1929, the Inland Utilities Company, one of the plaintiffs in error, caused to be introduced Ordinance No. 202, entitled: “An ordinance authorizing the sale to the Inland Utilities Company of that part of the waterworks system of the town of Burlington, Colorado, heretofore and now used for the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy and power, and authorizing the execution of a contract with said company covering said sale”; that thereupon said ordinance was adopted; that thereafter Ordinance No. 203, entitled: “An ordinance directing the submission to the qualified electors of the town of Burlington, Colorado, for their approval or disapproval of a contract between said town and the Inland Utilities Company, dated May 6, 1929, providing for the sale by said town to said company of all the waterworks system of said town heretofore and now used for the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy and power, and providing for the grant by the town to said company of a franchise for a period of twenty-five years to erect, construct, operate and maintain in said town electric lig’ht works, and to use the streets, alleys and public grounds of said town for said period for constructing, operating, and maintaining therein and thereon or over or under the same all poles, lines, conduits, wires and other appliances necessary for the safe distribution and sale of electricity in said town *75 and all future additions thereto” was adopted; that pursuant to a notice of election called for the purpose of ratifying the action of the board of trustees as taken by said ordinance, a pretended election was held on June 4,1929, as a result of which, the contract of sale of said electric system was authorized by a vote of 115 for and 102 against; that the Inland Utilities Company claimed that said Ordinance No. 202, and the contract of sale therein described, was approved and ratified at said pretended election; and that thereby it has bought from said town the electric part of the waterworks system of said town as described in said ordinance and contract, and is entitled to a conveyance thereof, and it will demand and accept a conveyance thereof on July 1, 1929, unless it is restrained from so doing; that the board of trustees claims that said Ordinance No. 202, and the contract of sale of the electric plant of said waterworks system, were ratified and approved at said pretended election, and that the town has thereby sold said electric part of its waterworks system to the Inland Utilities Company, and will make conveyance thereof on July 1, 1929, unless restrained from so doing; that Ordinances No. 202 and No. 203 are null and void because “they include the grant of a franchise by said town to said the Inland Utilities Company for a period of twenty-five years to use the streets, alleys, and public grounds of said town to' erect, maintain and operate an electric plant, and that such a franchise or any other franchise for such purpose cannot be granted by any such ordinances or any such elections” and that the pretended election held pursuant thereto is null and void.

Other allegations in the complaint concerning- the manner of adoption of said ordinances, illegal voting* and irregularities at the election held pursuant thereto, and the illegal use of money by the Inland Utilities Company in connection therewith, all of which are denied, need not here be set out at length. Appended as exhibits and made *76 a part of the complaint are said Ordinances No. 202 and No. 203, the election notice and the contract.

Plaintiffs in error in their answer admit that the electric system was acquired as a part of the original waterworks system of the town of Burlington, but deny that it is an essential part of the waterworks system and cannot be sold as an independent unit; admit the passage of said ordinances and deny their invalidity; admit the notices of election, but deny their invalidity; admit that the Inland Utilities Company claims that Ordinance No. 202 and the contract of sale therein described, were approved and ratified at said pretended election, and that thereby it has bought from said town the electric part of the waterworks system of said town as described in said ordinance and contract and is entitled to a conveyance thereof, and will demand and accept a conveyance thereof on July 1, 1929, unless it is restrained from so doing; deny that said ordinance includes the grant of a franchise by said town to said the Inland Utilities Company for a period of twenty-five years, and that such a franchise or any other franchise for such purpose cannot be granted by any such ordinances or any such elections. Other denials are made as to allegations in connection with the manner of adoption of said ordinance and the selection of election judges, the alleged illegal votes and the improper use of money by the Inland Utilities Company. The replication denied new matter in the answer.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, among other charges, contending that Ordinances No. 202 and No. 203 are void because they attempted to grant a franchise to the Inland Utilities Company and were not passed pursuant to Compiled Laws 1921, sections 9172 and 9173 authorizing the granting of franchises.

The district court sustained the motion and ordered the temporary injunction theretofore entered made permanent, which ruling is now assigned as error, the contention being that under the pleadings such motion should have been denied and a trial had on the issues joined.

*77 If the pleadings disclose affirmatively that said ordinances are void for any reason, the motion was properly granted, otherwise not. The sections above referred to provide:

“9172. * * * No franchise or license giving or granting to any person or persons, corporation or corporations, the right or privilege to erect, construct, operate or maintain a street railway, electric light plant or system, telegraph or telephone system within any city or town, or to use the streets or alleys of a town or city for such purposes, shall be granted or given by any city of the first or second class or by any incorporated town in this state in any other manner or form than by an ordinance passed and published in the manner hereinafter set forth. * * * .

“9173.

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

Related

Opinion No. (1996)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1996
Davis v. City and County of Denver
342 P.2d 674 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 P. 771, 87 Colo. 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inland-utilities-co-v-schell-colo-1930.