PIEDMONT POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
v.
TOWN OF GRAHAM ET AL.; PASCHALL ET AL. V. TOWN OF GRAHAM ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Piedmont Power & Light Company sought to enjoin the Town of Graham from granting a competing electric utility franchise to use the town's streets, arguing that its own non-exclusive franchise grant constituted an exclusive right and that allowing competition would violate its contract and deprive it of property without due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that grants of municipal franchises are strictly construed and nothing passes by implication, so the company's non-exclusive franchise could not be read to confer exclusive rights, and competition resulting from a similar grant to another company therefore could not constitute a constitutional taking.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice Clarke.
These are appeals direct from decrees of the District Court sustaining motions to dismiss complaints for the reason that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute a valid cause of action in equity. The cases involve the same facts differently stated by different complainants. The asserted warrant for the appeals is that action taken by the officials of the Town of Graham, North Carolina, if allowed to become effective, would result in violation of appellants’ contract with that town and in depriving them of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Since the bill in No. 684 contains all of the elements of strength which the bill in No. 685 contains and lacks some of its elements of weakness, the disposition of the former will rule the latter. In No. 684 the appellant, a corporation, averring that it is the owner of a franchise to use the streets of the Town of Gxaham for the distribution 'of electric current, prays that the officials of the town be restrained from certifying as lawfully passed an ordinance granting a like franchise to the defendant, the Mutual Power & Light Company, and that the company be enjoined from using the streets for such purpose.
The grant to the appellant is set out in full in the bill and plainly it is not one of exclusive rights in the streets. The attempt to derive an exclusive grant from the declaration, in the paragraph of the ordinance relating to the trimming of trees, that “said Town of Graham hereby warrants that it will, by its proper authorities, provide for the full and free use of its streets, lanes,” etc., is fatuous and futile. Grants of rights and privileges by a State or municipality are strictly construed and whatever is not unequivocally granted is withheld, — nothing passes by implication. Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U. S. 22, 34; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 471; Mitchell v. Dakota Central Telephone Co., 246 U. S. 396, 412. The grant to appellant not being an exclusive one, the contention that competition in business, likely to result from a similar grant to another company, would be a violation of appellant’s contract, or a taking of its property in violation of the Constitution of the United States is so plainly frivolous that the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, filed inr each case, must be sustained. David Kaufman Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (63 total)
-
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co., Inc., 257 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1922)…must be dismissed. Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. The writ of error is dismissed.…
-
Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n of the State of Cal., 255 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1921)…’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184; Berkman v. United States, 250 U. S. 114, 118; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193. True it is elaborately argued that the court below erred in supposing that the statute was susceptible of the com struction which it affixed to it and that, instead of adopting that construction, its duty was to hqld the statute vóid for repugnanc…
-
Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mont. v. Great N. Utils. Co., 289 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1933)…to regulate its services and rates, but also to authority of the city to grant to others the privilege similarly to serve. The city was free to admit other purveyors of gas. Madera Water Works v. Madera, 228 U.S. .454. Piedmont Power Co. v. Graham, 253 U.S. 193. Springfield Gas Co. v. Springfield, 257 U.S. 66, 70. The appellee does not complain that the rates imposed upon it by the order differ from those which have been established and are binding on its competitor. The gravamen of-its complaint is that t…
Previewing 3 of 63 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blair v. City of Chicago, 201 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1906)
- Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1919)
- Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U.S. 580 (U.S. 1915)
- Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1906)
- David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1910)
- City of Mitchell v. Dakota Cent. Tel. Co., 246 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1918)