Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg

185 U.S. 65, 22 S. Ct. 585, 46 L. Ed. 808, 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2241
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 7, 1902
Docket392
StatusPublished
Cited by73 cases

This text of 185 U.S. 65 (Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U.S. 65, 22 S. Ct. 585, 46 L. Ed. 808, 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2241 (1902).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Shiras,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The sole question for our consideration is whether" the bill, as originally filed and as amended, presented a Federal question. As the party plaintiff and the party defendant were both corporations and citizens of the same State, the Circuit Court of the United States could not take jurisdiction of the controversy "between them, unless the complainant laid grounds for that jurisdiction by asserting rights arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and such assertion must appear in the complainant’s statement of its own claim. Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 686; State of Tennessee v. Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Blackburn v. Portland Miming Co., 175 U. S. 571.

It is true that the learned judge, in his certificate to this court, inquires “whether a Federal question was involved upon the pleadings.” And it is also true that the counsel for the respective parties have gone, in their briefs, into a discussion of questions of fact and law, as if the case were here on appeal from a final decree on the merits.

But our function, in the case before us on this certificate, is restricted to the inquiry whether, upon the allegations of the bill of complaint, assuming them to be true in point of fact, a Federal question is disclosed so as to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction in a suit between citizens of the same State. If we conclude, after an inspection of the bill, that a Federal question is thereby presented, we must reverse the decree of the Circuit Court below dismissing the bill, and direct that court to proceed in the orderly exercise of its jurisdiction to determine the con *69 troversy; if we fail to find such a question, the decree of the Circuit Court must be affirmed."

Addressing ourselves, then, to a consideration of the contents of the bill, original and supplemental, we encounter a very long and somewhat confusing narrative of the facts of the case. "We do not think it necessary to state those facts in full in. this opinion, but shall confine our attention to the allegations in which questions arising under the laws or Constitution of the United States are claimed to arise.

By an act of the legislature of the State of Mississippi, approved on the- 18th day of March, 1886, the city of Vicksburg was authorized “ to provide for the erection and maintenance of a system of waterworks to supply said city with water, and to that end-to contract with a- party or parties who shall build and operate waterworks.”

The city received competitive bids for the construction and maintenance of said waterworks, and on November 18,1886, at a special meeting of the board of mayor and aldermen, a committee reported that the bid made by Samuel R. Bullock & Company, of New York was the best bid, and submitted the draft of an ordinance, entitled “ An ordinance to provide for a supply of water to the city of Vicksburg, in "Warren County, Mississippi, and to its inhabitants, contracting with Samuel R. Bullock & Company, their associates, successors and assigns, for a supply, of water for public use,-and giving the city of Vicksburg an option to purchase said works.” This ordinance was then adopted, in terms as follows :

“ Sec. 1. That in consideration of the public benefit to be derived therefrom the exclusive right and privilege is hereby granted for the period of thirty (30) years from the tiine that this ordinance takes effect, unto Samuel R. Bullock & Company, their associates, successors and assigns, of erecting,-maintaining and operating a system of waterworks in accordance with the terms and provisions of this ordinance, and of using the streets, alleys, public squares and all other public places within the corporate-limits of the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, as "they now exist or may hereafter be extended, and within such other territory as may now or hereafter be’ extended and within such *70 other territory as may now or hereafter be under its jurisdiction, for the purpose of laying pipes, mains and other conduits, and erecting hydrants and other apparatus for conducting and furnishing an adequate supply of good wholesome water to the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, and to its inhabitants for public and private use, and for making repairs and extensions to the said system from time to time during the period in which this ordinance shall be in force.
“ The said Samuel R. Bullock & Company, their associates, successors and assigns, shall exercise the greatest care and diligence in the use of the said streets, alleys, public squares and other public places, and shall cause no unnecessary obstruction of, or interruption to, the public travel over or upon the same, or any injury to or interference with any pipes, mains, sewers, which may now be lawfully located beneath the surface thereof.
“ The said Samuel R. Bullock & Company, their associates, successors and assigns, shall take every precaution to provide against danger to property, life and limb by reason of the exercise of the rights and privileges hereby granted, and shall cause all excavations and obstructions to be properly lighted and guarded at night, and after the completion of the purposes for which the said streets, alleys, public squares and other public places may be used, they shall be restored to their former condition as near as may be without unnecessary delay, and they shall at their own cost and expense relay their mains and pipes when made necessary by a change of grade in any street ordered by the board of mayor and aldermen of said city if there was no established grade for such street at the time said mains and pipe were laid. On failure to restore said streets, alleys, public squares and other public places as aforesaid, the mayor and aldermen of the city of Vicksburg may, on reasonable notice to them by any city officer, cause the same to be restored and recover the costs and expenses thereof from the said Samuel R. Bullock & Co., their associates, successors and assigns, in any court having jurisdiction of the amount.
“ The said Samuel R. Bullock & Company, their associates, successors and assigns, hereby agree to hold the mayor and aldermen of the city of Vicksburg'harmless from any liability *71 which, may result to it by reason of any violation of this section.
“ Sec. 2. The general plan of the said system of waterworks shall be as follows:
“Mains.— The pipe systém shall consist of not less than twelve (12) miles of mains of sizes varying from sixteen inches (16) to six (6) inches in diameter. The pipe used shall be of .the best quality of cast iron pip'é and each pipe shall be tested at its place of manufacture to a pressure of three hundred (300) pounds to the square inch. All pipe shall be coated with Dr.

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

Related

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Bank of Laurel v. Bloom
426 F. Supp. 495 (S.D. Mississippi, 1977)
Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.
422 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Beverly Sewerage Auth. v. Delanco Sewerage Auth.
167 A.2d 46 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1961)
Commercial State Bank of Roseville v. Gidney
174 F. Supp. 770 (District of Columbia, 1959)
Ferguson v. City of Kenosha
93 N.W.2d 460 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1958)
Brainard v. Town of West Hartford
18 Conn. Super. Ct. 218 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1953)
Doucette v. Vincent
194 F.2d 834 (First Circuit, 1952)
Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad
324 U.S. 439 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
303 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1938)
West Tennessee Power & Light Co. v. City of Jackson
21 F. Supp. 57 (W.D. Tennessee, 1937)
Femmer v. City of Juneau
9 Alaska 175 (D. Alaska, 1937)
Vaughan v. John C. Winston Co.
83 F.2d 370 (Tenth Circuit, 1936)
Northwestern Light & Power Co. v. Town of Milford
82 F.2d 45 (Eighth Circuit, 1936)
R. C. Tway Coal Co. v. Glenn
12 F. Supp. 570 (W.D. Kentucky, 1935)
Swift & Co. v. United States
276 U.S. 311 (Supreme Court, 1928)
Gwin v. City of Greenwood
115 So. 890 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 U.S. 65, 22 S. Ct. 585, 46 L. Ed. 808, 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vicksburg-waterworks-co-v-vicksburg-scotus-1902.