Mitchell v. Tulsa Water, Light, Heat & Power Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from the United States Court for the Western District of Indian Territoryj Wm. E. Lawrence, Judge. Action by the Tulsa Water, Light, Heat & Power Company against John 0. Mitchell and others to enjoin defendants from constructing and maintaining a system of waterworks to be owned and operated by the city of Tulsa,- from submitting the question to the city, from issuing waterworks bonds, and from supptying the inhabitants of that city or using for itself water from any…
Read the full summary
Error from the United States Court for the Western District of Indian Territoryj Wm. E. Lawrence, Judge. Action by the Tulsa Water, Light, Heat & Power Company against John 0. Mitchell and others to enjoin defendants from constructing and maintaining a system of waterworks to be owned and operated by the city of Tulsa,- from submitting the question to the city, from issuing waterworks bonds, and from supptying the inhabitants of that city or using for itself water from any system of waterworks constructed by the city. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed to the United States Court…
1Opinion of the CourtHayes, J.
(after stating the facts as above). Defendants make six assignments of error, but they may be reduced to one assignment, to the effect that the court erred in overruling their demurrer to plaintiff’s first cause of action, and in rendering judgment for plaintiff. The contentions of defendants may be divided into three propositions, as follows:
First. That the Tulsa Water, Light, Heat & Power Company has no exclusive franchise by which is granted the exclusive right to use the streets, alleys, etc., of the city of Tulsa, for the purpose of maintaining and operating a system of waterworks.
Second.…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co. v. SandfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Hamilton Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Hamilton CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Knoxville Water Co. v. KnoxvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- The Binghamton BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- City Nat. Bank of Fort Smith v. Incorporated Town of KiowaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- City of Memphis Ex Rel. Dial v. BrowderCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915