Approved in Farmers' Loan etc. Co. v. Sioux Falls, 199 U. S. 601, 50 L. Ed. 328, 26 Sup. Ct. 748, following rule; Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U. S. 37, 50 L. Ed. 360, 26 Sup. Ct. 224, Tillamook Water Co. v. Tillamook, 150 Fed. 119, 80 C. C. A. 71, and Tillamook Water Co. v. Tillamook, 139 Fed. 406, 407, all holding municipal grant to water company of right to furnish water to inhabitants does not preclude city from furnishing water; Helena Waterworks Co. v. Helena, 195 U. S. 388, 49 L. Ed. 248, 25 Sup. Ct. 40, by conditioning franchise on company furnishing water to all purchasers at 'agreed rate for five years, city does not contract not to maintain waterworks thereafter; Joplin v. Light Co., 191 U. S. 157, 48 L. Ed. 129, 24 Sup. Ct. 44, holding grant of nonexclusive electric light plant franchise for twenty years raises no implied contract that city will not engage in commercial lighting; Washington-Oregon Corp. v. City of Chehalis, 202 Fed. 595, provision in ordinance granting franchise to water company that city will not contract with other person or corporation for water supply during term of franchise does not preclude city from constructing its own waterworks; Town of Glenwood Springs v. Glenwood Light etc. Co., 202 Fed. 681, L. R. A. 1915C, 438, 121 C. C. A. 88, grant of franchise to company to supply inhabitants with water for domestic purposes, and exclusive right to furnish town with water for public purposes, does not exclude town from constructing waterworks to supply inhabitants with water for domestic purposes; Madera Waterworks v. Madera, 185 Fed. 283, 284, 294, article XI, section 19, of California Constitution, does not grant, expressly or by implication, exclusive franchise to corporation constructing waterworks thereunder, and construction of competing works by city is not impairment of contract; Sioux Falls v. Farmers' Loan etc. Co., 136 Fed. 728, 69 C. C. A. 373, grant to company of exclusive right to construct waterworks for twenty years does not preclude city from constructing waterworks thereafter; Helena v. Helena Waterworks Co., 122 Fed. 15, 58 C. C. A. 381, holding no implied contract that city would not build waterworks arose from ordinance granting use of streets for twenty years with provision against exclusive use; Clark v. Los Angeles, 160 Cal. 39, 116 Pac. 726, article XI, section 19, of Constitution, does not give existing electric company exclusive franchise and city may establish competing plant; Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 627, 34 South. 640, under Const. 1885, article XVI, § 30, reserving right to city to regulate water rates does not create contract prohibiting city from entering into business; dissenting opinion in Pennsylvania Water Co. v. Pittsburg, 226 Pa. 639, 644, 75 Atl. 951, 952, majority holding city annexing borough and agreeing to recognize contracts of borough for water supply was bound by contract of borough with water company without limit of time to supply inhabitants with water, regardless of whether company was given exclusive privilege; San Francisco v. McGovern, 28 Cal. App. 511, 152 Pac. 988, arguendo. .1007 DETROIT v. DETROIT ETC. RY. CO. 184 U. S. 368-399 Distinguished in Farmers' Loan etc. Co. v. Mayor etc. of Meridian, 139 Fed. 674, 675, grant of right, obligating grantee to construct and maintain waterworks, grantor to take water during term, precludes city from maintaining waterworks; Farmers' Loan etc. Co. v. Sioux Falls, 131 Fed. 899, where city without power to construct waterworks grants exclusive right to company, subsequent attempt to construct waterworks will be enjoined. Right of municipality to establish competing water plant. Note, Establishment and regulation of municipal water supply. Note, 184 U. S. 368–399, 46 L. Ed. 592, 22 Sup. Ct. 410, DETROIT V. DETROIT CITIZENS' STREET RY. CO. Equity has jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of ordinance reducing rates on ground of multiplicity of suits by passengers. Approved in Wilmington City Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 198 Fed. 179, Federal court has jurisdiction to restrain order of utility board requiring street railway to resume sale of six tickets for twenty-five cents without giving railway hearing on merits; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., 157 Fed. 959, enjoining enforcement of statute establishing rates alleged to be confiscatory, where enforcement would interfere with operation of road and obstruct local and interstate commerce; City of El Reno v. Cleveland-Trinidad Pav. Co., 25 Okl. 661, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, 107 Pac. 167, enjoining ordinance repealing assessing ordinance to provide means of paving city; City of Galveston v. Mistrot, 47 Tex. Civ. 67, 104 S. W. 418, refusing to enjoin alleged violation of ordinance prohibiting obstruction of sidewalks to avoid multiplicity of actions. where no property rights are involved; Hoffman v. Tooele City, 42 Utah, 356, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 992, 130 Pac. 62, denying injunction to restrain prosecutions for violations of ordinance prohibiting sale of intoxicants, as appeal from convictions on ground of invalidity of ordinance is adequate remedy. Distinguished in Boise Artesian Hot etc. Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 284, 53 L. Ed. 799, 29 Sup. Ct. 426, denying injunction to restrain collection of tax on ground of cloud on title, where tax can only be collected by action at law in which defense of illegality may be made; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Birmingham, 211 Fed. 714, equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin subscribers of telephone company from refusing to pay rates fixed by contract between company and city. State legislature may authorize municipality to contract with street railroad as to rates of fares, so as to bind future council from altering them. Approved in Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 224 U. S. 661, 664, 56 L. Ed. 939, 941, 32 Sup. Ct. 572, legislative grant of 1886 made prior to adoption of present Constitution of Kentucky in 1891 to telephone company for use of streets in Louisville could not be revoked by city ordinance of 1900; Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 215 U. S. 434, 436, 54 L. Ed. 270, 271, 30 Sup. Ct. 118, franchise ordinance of 1873, ratified by legislature, granted to street railway right to charge five cent fares for fifty years and ordinance of 1907 requiring railway to sell six tickets for quarter is impairment of contract; Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 211 U. S. 273, 274, 276, 277, 53 L. Ed. 182, 183, 184, 29 Sup. Ct. 50, charter giving city authority to regulate rates did not authorize contract by franchise ordinance establishing rates of fares for period of franchise and subsequent ordinance establishing rates is not impairment of contract; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 450, 452, 482, 50 L. Ed. 822, 823, 835, 26 Sup. Ct. 427, in absence of specified time, grant of street railway franchise does not extend beyond life of municipality; Cleveland v. Cleveland City Ry. Co., 194 U. S. 531, 536, 48 L. Ed. 1106, 1108, 24 Sup. Ct. 756, accepting ordinance consolidating street railway securing benefit of five cent fare creates contract right to charge that fare; Ashland Electric Power etc. Co. v. Ashland, 217 Fed. 160, ordinance granting electric company right to use streets for poles and wires, without limitation of time in grant itself or general law of State, is grant in perpetuity and city cannot oust company summarily; Portland Ry. Light etc. Co. v. Portland, 201 Fed. 125, city had no power, under charter expressly reserving right to regulate franchise or right granted, to contract away by franchise ordinance right of regulating fares, and ordinance of 1912, regulating fares, is not void as impairment of contract; Omaha Electric Light etc. Co. v. Omaha, 172 Fed. 496, ordinance of 1884 granting company right to use streets for poles and wires for general electric light business did not grant company right to transmit electricity for heating or other purposes; Omaha Water Co. v. Omaha, 147 Fed. 6, 7, 9, 11, 8 Ann. Cas. 614, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 736, 77 C. C. A. 267, contract of city, authorized by legislature, establishing maximum rates to be charged by water company, in consideration of construction of works, is impaired by order of water board reducing rates; Omaha Water Co. v. Omaha, 147 Fed. 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 8 Ann. Cas. 614, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 736, 77 C. C. A. 267, city, after contracting with company for water whereby company accepted ordinance fixing charges, cannot lower that rate; Bessemer v. Bessemer Waterworks, 152 Ala. 412, 44 South. 669, under charter provisions, contract of city regulating rates for water supply for period of thirty years is valid, and subsequent ordinance reducing rates impairs contract; Shreveport Traction Co. v. Shreveport, 122 La. 10, 11, 129 Am. St. Rep. 345, 47 South. 43, 44, enjoining city from enforcing ordinance requiring traction company to issue transfers as impairment of franchise ordinances establishing fares; Boerth v. Detroit City Gas Co., 152 Mich. 663, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1197, 116 N. W. 632, holding city was impliedly 1009 DETROIT v. DETROIT ETC. RY. CO. 184 U. S. 368-399 authorized to enter into contract with gas company prescribing rates; People v. Detroit United Ry. Co., 134 Mich. 686, 104 Am. St. Rep. 626, note, 63 L. R. A. 746, 97 N. W. 38, franchise having been granted, city can pass ordinance compelling street-car to be equipped with steam brake; Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commrs., 84 N. J. L. 480, 87 Atl. 659, in fixing value upon which company is entitled to return in determination of reasonableness of gas rate established by commission, no allowance should be made for special franchise not creating exclusive right, but qualified by right of State to fix reasonable rates; Pioneer Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State, 33 Okl. 728, 127 Pac. 1075, ordinance of municipality, having no power to fix rates, granting telephone company right to use streets and fixing rates, is void as to rates, and commission may establish other rates; City of Barre v. Barre & Montpelier etc. Co., 88 Vt. 313, 92 Atl. 240, where street railroad acts under franchise fixing maximum fare, railroad commission has no power under act of 1906 to regulate rates; Bluefield Waterworks etc. Co. v. Bluefield, 69 W. Va. 8, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 759, 70 S. E. 775, city's power to regulate rates rests upon right to contract, and city cannot impose penalties for violation of contract, in absence of delegation of such power by legislature; State ex rel. Webster v. Superior Court, 67 Wash. 42, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 78, L. R. A. 1915C, 287, 120 Pac. 863, upholding Public Utilities Act of 1911 surrendering control of telegraph and telephone companies to commission; Duluth Street Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 161 Wis. 253, 254, 152 N. W. 890, 891, legislative right to regulate rates of street railway was not suspended by ordinance, granted under general statute of 1913, limiting fare to five cents; City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc etc. Traction Co., 145 Wis. 27, 28, 140 Am. St. Rep. 1056, 129 N. W. 930, contract of city, not specifically authorized by State, establishing ten cent interurban fare is not suspension of right of State to regulate such rates; dissenting opinion in Milwaukee Electric Ry. etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 153 Wis. 622, 626, 633, 635, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 911, L. R. A. 1915F, 744, 142 N. W. 500, 501, 504, 505, majority holding city was not authorized by legislature to make contract with railway establishing rates and ordinance of 1900 was not contract impaired by regulation of railroad commission. Distinguished in Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v. Railroad Commission, 238 U. S. 181, 59 L. Ed. 1260, 35 Sup. Ct. 820, holding Wisconsin Rev. Stats. 1898, § 1862, did not authorize city to make irrevocable ordinance fixing street car rates, and refusing to enjoin enforcement of order of commission reducing rates; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 409, 50 L. Ed. 249, 26 Sup. Ct. 66, upholding Iowa Code 1897, § 1754, prohibiting insurance companies from agreeing on rates or manner of transacting business; Ozark Bell Tel. Co. v. Springfield, 140 Fed. 669, bill by company to enjoin enforcement of XVIII-64 58 ordinance fixing telephone charges where there are many patrons, states case in equity; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 199 Ill. 535, 536, 65 N. E. 466, upholding Chicago Rev. Codes, §§ 1723, 1725, limiting rate of fare on street railways to five cents; Brummitt v. Ogden Waterworks Co., 33 Utah, 302, 93 Pac. 834, invalidity of provision establishing rate for fifty years, unauthorized by legislature, does not vitiate entire agreement; Milwaukee Electric Ry. etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 153 Wis. 609, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 911, L. R. A. 1915F, 744, 142 N. W. 496, ordinance of 1900 establishing rates was not impaired by order of commission changing rates, where city was unauthorized by legislature to make contracts establishing rates. When contract as to rates is made, city's power over matter is sus pended during life of contract. Approved in Hamilton etc. Traction Co. v. Hamilton etc. Transit Co., 69 Ohio St. 410, 69 N. E. 993, holding city cannot grant to second street railway same right of way as previously granted to another street railway. Distinguished in Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 189 U. S. 437, 47 L. Ed. 891, 23 Sup. Ct. 532, holding obligation of contract with water company for supply of water at certain prices is not impaired by municipal ordinance reducing rates; Elkins v. City of Chicago, 119 Fed. 960, holding Federal question of impairment of contract not raised by action of council in adopting committee report that railway should be dispossessed unless franchise renewed. Reservation in franchise ordinance of right of council to make needed rules and regulations from time to time did not extend to alteration of contract made under express legislative authority establishing rate of fare. Approved in Southern Wisconsin Ry. Co. v. City of Madison, 240 U. S. 462, 60 L. Ed. 743, 36 Sup. Ct. 402, holding franchise ordinance of 1892 requiring street railway to keep certain portion of street in repair and reserving right of city council to make regulations, authorized requirement of ordinance of 1910 to pave with asphalt; Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 230 U. S. 65, 66, 57 L. Ed. 1393, 1394, 33 Sup. Ct. 988, ordinance requiring telephone corporation to remove poles and wires placed in street under former ordinance granting right without limitation as to time, or to pay rental not required by original ordinance is void as impairment of contract; Boise Artesian Hot etc. Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U. S. 91, 57 L. Ed. 1406, 33 Sup. Ct. 997, ordinance of 1906 requiring monthly rental of three hundred dollars for use of streets from water company, successor to company receiving franchise to use streets under ordinance of 1889, is impairment of contract; Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Birmingham, 211 Fed. 504. 505, 506, 508, 509, ordinance, authorized by legislature, granting company right to furnish water for thirty years and fixing absolute rate to be charged during term of contract authorizes company to charge |