|
Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 268 U.S. 232 (1925)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 268 U.S. 232 (1925)
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The City of Palatka brought this bill to restrain the petitioner, the Southern Utilities Company, from charging more than ten cents per kilowatt, meter measurement, for commercial electric lighting in the city. It alleged a contract in the grant of the petitioner’s franchise by which the petitioner was bound not to charge more than that sum. The defendant pleaded that, in present circumstances, the rate prescribed in the ordinance granting the franchise was unreasonably low, and that to enforce it would deprive defendant of its property without due process of law contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The plea was overruled, and, defendant having declined to plead further, a decree was entered for the plaintiff by the Circuit Court for Putnam County which subsequently was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 86 Fla. 583.
The supreme court held that the city had power to grant the franchise and to make the contract, and that it had no power of its own motion to withdraw, but it concedes the unfettered power of the legislature to regulate the rates. On that ground, the defendant contends that there is a lack of mutuality, and therefore that it is free, and cannot be held to rates that, in the absence of contract, it would be unconstitutional to impose. The argument cannot prevail. Without considering whether an agreement by the company in consideration of the grant of the franchise might not bind the company in some cases, even if it left the city free, it is perfectly plain that the fact that the contract might be overruled by a higher power does not destroy its binding effect between the parties when it is left undisturbed. Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Decatur, 262 U.S. 432, 438; Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co., 265 U.S. 215, 218. Such a notion logically carried out would impart new and hitherto unsuspected results to the power to amend the Constitution or to exercise eminent domain. There is nothing in this decision inconsistent with Southern Iowa Electric Co. v. Chariton, 255 U.S. 539, San Antonio v. San Antonio Public Service Co., 255 U.S. 547, and Ortega Co. v. Triay, 260 U.S. 103.
Decree affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: Holmes, "Holmes, J., Lead Opinion," Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 268 U.S. 232 (1925) in 268 U.S. 232 268 U.S. 233. Original Sources, accessed February 16, 2025, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GM1IHLQNYJ19SNA.
MLA: Holmes. "Holmes, J., Lead Opinion." Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 268 U.S. 232 (1925), in 268 U.S. 232, page 268 U.S. 233. Original Sources. 16 Feb. 2025. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GM1IHLQNYJ19SNA.
Harvard: Holmes, 'Holmes, J., Lead Opinion' in Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 268 U.S. 232 (1925). cited in 1925, 268 U.S. 232, pp.268 U.S. 233. Original Sources, retrieved 16 February 2025, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GM1IHLQNYJ19SNA.
|