SOUTHERN UTILITIES COMPANY
v.
CITY OF PALATKA
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.
The City of Palatka sought to enforce a contractual rate of ten cents per kilowatt against Southern Utilities Company based on the company's franchise grant, and the company defended by arguing that the rate was unconstitutionally low and that the city's retained power to have its rates regulated by the state legislature rendered the contract non-binding for lack of mutuality. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment for the city, holding that the existence of a higher power's ability to override a contract does not destroy its binding effect between the parties when left undisturbed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 charg-ing more than ten cents per kilowatt, meter meásurement, 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.
Decne affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Fla. Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1938)…of the Florida Constitution was a factor in the decision in City of Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 500, 34 So. 631, affirmed in 199 U. S. 241, 26 Sup. Ct. 23, 50 L. Ed. 170; and in Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 86 Fla. 583, 99 So. 236, 268 U. S. 232, 45 Sup. Ct. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930. See also Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331, 40 Sup. Ct. 338, 64 L. Ed. 596. The Supreme Court of the United States has announced the following: “Businesses said to be clothed with a public interest just…1 / 5
-
State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 90 Fla. 721 (Fla. 1925)…ful governmental rules and regulations of the business of the common carrier. See Sec. 30, Art. XVI, Fla. Const.; Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 86 Fla. 583, 99 South. Rep. 236; Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, Fla., — U. S. —, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; City of Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co. 265 U. S. 215,- — -Sup. Ct. Rep. — ; Ortega Co. v. Triay, 260 U. S. 103; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corporation, 248 U. S. 372, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. [*746] 117; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Publ…
-
Miami Bridge Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of the State of Fla., 155 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1944)…Fla. 290, 84 So. 61; State ex rel. Railroad Commissioners v. Southern Telephone & Const. Co., 65 Fla. 270, 61 So. 506; Town of Brooksville v. Florida Tel. Co., 81 Fla. 436, 88 So. 307; Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 86 Fla. 583, 99 So. 236 (aff. 268 U. S. 232, 45 S. Ct. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930); Demeter Land Co. v. Public Service Co., 99 Fla. 954, 128 So. 402. Petitioner’s fourth question posed for adjudication is: Do the courts of the State of Florida, "under our Constitution, have exclusive jurisdiction of…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ga. Ry. & Power Co. v. Town of Decatur, 262 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1923)
- S. Utils. Co. v. City of Palatka, 86 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1923)
- S. Iowa Elec. Co. v. City of Chariton, 255 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1921)
- City of San Antonio v. San Antonio Pub. Serv. Co., 255 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1921)
- City of Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co., 265 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1924)
- Ortega Co. v. Triay, 260 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1922)