Bartholomew v. City of Austin
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. This action was instituted to recover from the city of Austin the sum of |10,900.83 for water supplied and rental of hydrants on a contract entered into between the City Water Company and (lie city of Austin on the 13th day of April, 3882, which contract was attached to and made a part of the petition, and of which the following is a copy: “City Water Company Contract with the City of…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. This action was instituted to recover from the city of Austin the sum of |10,900.83 for water supplied and rental of hydrants on a contract entered into between the City Water Company and (lie city of Austin on the 13th day of April, 3882, which contract was attached to and made a part of the petition, and of which the following is a copy: “City Water Company Contract with the City of Austin. “An Ordinance. “Contract between the City Whiter Company and the City of Austin. “This contract, made and entered…
1Opinion of the CourtPardee, Circuit Judge
The contract on which this action is based is a grant and privilege for a period of 20 years to the City Wafer Company to supply water to the city of Austin, and the inhabitants thereof, with the right of extension under certain named contingencies. The grant is not in terms an exclusive one, and, so far as the language used is concerned, there is nothing to hinder the city of Austin from erecting other and competing works, nor from granting to others the right to use the streets, nor from *364contracting with others for the furnishing of more water, as the needs of the city may require. It is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1887
- Flash v. ConnSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Grant v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Calumet Service Co. v. City of ChiltonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Ennis Water Works v. City of EnnisTexas Supreme Court · 1912
- Cunningham v. City of ClevelandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- City of Winchester v. Winchester Water Works Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Southern Pine Co. v. HallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1900
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.