Issue 25 and Volume 23.

GRIFFIN vs. GOLDBORD WATER COMPANY. (Concluded.) While the di_____endents cannot charge mare than the rates stipulated in the ordiniace granting it the franchise, because granted up that condition, those rates are not binding upon consumers, who have a right to the protection of the courts against unreasonable charges Since the constitution of 1833 (Art. VIII, sec. 1), if the rates had been prescribed in a charter prescribed by the legislature, they would be subject to revocation, and, indeed, independently of that constitutional provision (Stone vs. Farmers Co. 116 u. s. 307, R . Co., vs. Miller 132 u. s. 75, Chicago vs. Munn, 134 u. s. 413, Georgia v:. Smith, 70 Ga. 694, Winchester vs. Croxton, 9¾ Ky. 739); still less can those rates bind consumers (if unreasonable or discriminating) since the town had authority to grant the franchise, but not to stipulate for rates binding upon the citizens. The…

Subscribe to unlock this content

Subscribe Now