Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. • Cases involving the rights of -the-Vicksburg Waterworks Company, under the. contract made between the city of Vicks-" burg and the company, for furnishing the water supply of the city, have been before this court in two preceding actions, viz: Vicksburg v. The Waterworks Company,, 185 U. S. 65; and the Same v. Same, 202 U. S. 458. Owing to the previous statements of the case,' it…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. • Cases involving the rights of -the-Vicksburg Waterworks Company, under the. contract made between the city of Vicks-" burg and the company, for furnishing the water supply of the city, have been before this court in two preceding actions, viz: Vicksburg v. The Waterworks Company,, 185 U. S. 65; and the Same v. Same, 202 U. S. 458. Owing to the previous statements of the case,' it is only necessary to set out enough of the facts involved in the controversy now before us to make‘plain the conclusions…
1Opinion of the Court
Mb. Justice Day,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered, the opinion of the court.
It is contended on behalf of the appellee that the original decree of May 18, 1904, finally disposed of all the issues between the parties, including the right of the city to make rates for water consumption to private consumers under the authority of the act of March 19, 1904, and that the present controversy is foreclosed by the decree in the former case.
While it is true that the decree is very broad, we cannot agree to the contention of the appellee that it finally disposed of the matter now in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. VicksburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Griffin v. Goldsboro Water Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Mayor of Vicksburg v. HensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- State ex rel. Webster v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.