Manhattan Trust Co. v. Dayton Natural Gas Co.

55 F. 181, 7 Ohio F. Dec. 578, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio
DecidedApril 8, 1893
DocketNo. 4,594
StatusPublished

This text of 55 F. 181 (Manhattan Trust Co. v. Dayton Natural Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Manhattan Trust Co. v. Dayton Natural Gas Co., 55 F. 181, 7 Ohio F. Dec. 578, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (circtsdoh 1893).

Opinions

SAGE, District Judge.

The defendant company was organized as a corporation under the laws of the state of Ohio on the 24th day of November, 1886, under the name of the Southwestern Natural Gas & Petroleum Oil Company. On the 18th of March, 1887, the council of the city of Dayton, Ohio, adopted an ordinance in pursuance of the provisions of title 12, div. 8, c. 3, Rev. St. Ohio, authorizing the defendant to occupy streets, alleys, and public grounds of the city to lay pipes for the purpose of lighting the same, and furnish gas to the citizens and public buildings. By the terms of this ordinance the company had 18 months within which to introduce gas into the city. The eighth section enacted that if the company should fail to furnish a supply of natural gas for lighting and heating purposes by the 1st of January, 1889, the franchises and privileges granted by tbe ordinance might, by resolution of the city council, he declared forfeited, and thereupon all rights granted by the ordinance should cease and determine. The company, having-accepted the ordinance and executed the bond required by it, proceeded to the work of laying pipes, but the 1st of January came and passed, and the company wholly failed to perform its contract. On the 2d of February, 1889, the city council, by resolution, in pursuance of section 8 of the ordinance, declared all the rights granted thereby forfeited. Meantime, on the 23d of December, 1887, the council had passed an ordinance to fix and regulate the prices to be charged by the defendant company for natural gas to be furnished by it for fuel purposes for and during the period of five years next ensuing from and after the date at which the ordinance should take effect, which was to be at the expiration of ten days after the date of its first publication. The rate fixed by that ordinance related exclusively to gas to be furnished for fuel purposes by mixers. It contains a schedule of monthly charges and discounts for cooking, for laundry purposes, for heating, and for furnaces, graduated by the capacity of the mixers as indicated by numbers, and for furnaces by letters. Section 2 of the ordinance is as follows:

“Sec. 2. The foregoing is fixed as tlie minimum price at which said city council requires said company to furnish gas to the citizens of said city and to the public buildings of said city for said term of five years, and said company is hereby required to assent thereto by written acceptance filed in the office of the city clerk of said city.”

This ordinance was duly accepted by the company.

On the 28th of March, 1889, the name of the company having been changed to the Dayton Natural Gas Company, the council of the city of Dayton passed an ordinance granting to the company the right and privilege to lay, maintain, and operate gas pipes in the city for the purpose of supplying natural gas, or produce gas for heating, fuel, and power purposes only. By section 1 the grant to tbe company, its successors and assigns, subject to the terms, [183]*183conditions, and limitations of the ordinance, was of “the right and privilege, for the term of twenty years, to lay, maintain, and operate mains, pipes, branches, and conduits through the streets, lands, alleys, ayenues, and public grounds of said city, for the purpose of supplying said city and its inhabitants with natural gas or produce gas for heating, fuel, and power purposes only.” Section 10 of the ordinance is as follows:

“Sec. 10. Any consumer within said city shall have the right to raqui re gas to he furnished by meter measurement, and not by the schedule rates. In esses where a meter is used, said company shall have the right to charge and receive any sum, not exceeding ten cents per thousand cubic feet, if paid within ten days, or twelve and one-lialf cents per thousand, cubic feet ii' not so paid, for the gas used. Such meter shall be furnished, and set in place upon the written, application o£ any consumer, -without cost to such consumer, by sahl company; but said company shall be entitled to charge a rent of three dollars per year in advance therefor.”

In section 13 it is provided that the company shall be compelled to furnish gas to all applicants whenever applied for, and in section 14 that- “said company shall supply natural gas to consumers and to said city so long as said gat shall last.” Section 15 prescribes the diameter of the openings of the roteéis according to numbers and letters; also the thickness of the metal through which the outlet for gas is made in the mixers. It also provides that “the contract heretofore made between, the city and this company, as to schedule of prices, shall be in full force, except as herein altered, and for the niiexpired time of said original contract, and all property rights heretofore acquired by this company shall be preserved to It, except as modi Sod herein.”

Section 20 — the final seeiion — -provides “that this ordinance shall take effect at the date when said company shall file its writ ten acceptance of the provisions hereof with the city clerk of said city.” This ordinance, also, was duly accepted in writing by the defendant company.

The contract under the ordinance of December 23, 1887, expired on the 10th of January, 1893. Upon, the institution of this suit on the 18tb of February, 1898, the property of the defendant company was placed in the control of a receiver appointed by this court, who has qualified and taken possession. The receiver, claiming that there was after the 10th of January, 1893, no rate fixed by the council of Dayton which was operative and in force, proceeded to carry into effect a resolution of the defendant company passed in December, 1892, in anticipation of the termination of the contract created by the ordinance of December 23, 1887, and its acceptance by the defendant, and the modification thereof by the ordinance of March 28, 1889, and its acceptance, advanced the rate for gas to 20 cents per thousand cubic feet, and sent out Ms bills accordingly. Upon the application of the city of Dayton the court made a temporary order requiring the receiver to accept 10 cents per thousand cnbic feet, and credit the same upon the bills sent out, subject to and until further order. The city of Dayton was made a party defendant, and has filed its Intervening petition, to which the receiver and the complainant have made answer. Exceptions to [184]*184these answers for insufficiency have been filed. They present the question, what is the present force and effect of section 10 of the ordinance of March 28, 1889? The sections of the Ohio Revised Statutes bearing upon this question are as follows:

‘•Sea. 2478.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 F. 181, 7 Ohio F. Dec. 578, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-trust-co-v-dayton-natural-gas-co-circtsdoh-1893.