Danville Water Company v. Danville/Dissent White

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Danville Water Company v. Danville/Dissent Douglass White by Joseph McKenna
Dissent
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion
White

United States Supreme Court

180 U.S. 619

DANVILLE WATER COMPANY  v.  DANVILLE

 Argued: November 12, 1900. --- Decided: March 25, 1901


Mr. Justice White, with whom concur Mr. Justice Brewer, Mr. Justice Brown, and Mr. Justice Peckham, dissenting:

It will be seem from the opinion of the court that this case differs in no material particular from that of the Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, just decided, 180 U.S. 587, ante, p. 493, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493. Under the sanction of the same statutes considered in the Freeport Case, the defendant in error, the city of Danville, contracted with the plaintiff in error, the water company, for the period authorized by the statute, and stipulated as to the rates to be paid for a public water supply. These rates were adhered to until, under the authority of the statute of the state of Illinois passed in 1891, referred to in the opinion in the Freeport Case, the defendant in error reduced the rates below the contract price. It now asserts in this record that it possessed the power to do so.

For the reasons stated by me for dissenting from the opinion and decree in the Frceport Case, I dissent from the opinion and decree in the present case.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).