Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. The facts are stated in the opinion. The city and the Water Company both had power to enter into the contract and no other reasonable or just interpretation can be placed upon said contract than that the city thereby agreed not to erect and maintain waterworks on its own account, in competition with appellant, during the continuance of said contract.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. The facts are stated in the opinion. The city and the Water Company both had power to enter into the contract and no other reasonable or just interpretation can be placed upon said contract than that the city thereby agreed not to erect and maintain waterworks on its own account, in competition with appellant, during the continuance of said contract. A contract entered into within the authority of a municipal corporation .receives the same construction as one entered into between individuals. The purpose…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Harlan
This suit was brought by the Knoxville Water Company, a corporation of Tennessee, against the City of Knoxville, a municipal corporation of the same State, and against certain indi vidual citizens of Tennessee constituting the Waterworks Commission of that city.
Are the rights which the plaintiff sought to protect secured by the Constitution of the United .States in any such sense as to make the case — the. parties, all, being citizens of Tennessee— one arising under that instrument and therefore one-of which the Circuit Court could take original cognizance? An answer to these questions, it…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- US v. Don Fernando De La Maza Arredondo & OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by124 opinions
- The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Rapanos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Blair v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Sierra Club v. BabbittCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Reichelderfer v. QuinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.