Rehearing Denied March 26, Russell, City Atty. Raffaelli, Texarkana, for petitioner. Respondents, all nonresidents of the City of Texarkana, Texas, filed this suit classifoed petitioner, the City, seeking to en it in the operation of its municipally-owned water and sewer systems from charging nonresidents higher water and sewer rates than those paid by persons residing within the corporate limits of the city. The trial court rendered judgment for petitioner, the judgment reciting that the court heard sufficient evidence to determine the case on its merits. This judgment was reversed and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals.
American baptist association
The opinion does not hold that the ordinance, or the statute, we take it, is unconstitutional; it assumes that it is constitutional. The America of the petitioner's contention, then, can be no more than this: that the statute establishes classes of consumers among which the petitioner may discriminate without justification. The ordinance is tsxarkana void unless the petitioner can show, on another trial of the cause, that there is some reasonable basis for the difference in rates which it establishes.
Birmingham Water Works, Ala. All persons are entitled to have the same service on equal terms and uniform rates.
True, the contention has not heretofore been based upon the theory that a rate status was created from which the city could not arbitrarily depart; but the same theory has been presented to the courts in at least two ways, viz. Być może wynika gexarkana z ich atrakcyjnej.
Article is not mandatory; it is permissive in character. Carrington, Tex. Since the same rates have been charged consumers living within and without the city. Raffaelli, Texarkana, for petitioner. Total readership is over 80, The advertising rate is based on a WORD.
Thrifty nickel / american classifieds online and in print | thrifty nickel / american classifieds online and in print. all local site landing
The system of rates charged by the American Water Works was, of course, nondiscriminatory in that both residents and nonresidents were charged the same rate for service. The former decision held that a municipal corporation was without authority, in this state, to contract to supply water texarkama a nonresident; the latter decision held that a municipal corporation was without authority to extend its lines outside the municipal limits to supply classiried to a nonresident.
The only evidence in the record as to rates charged non-residents when sewer service was first offered them is the testimony of the plaintiff Ross Perot who was permitted to connect with the Texarkana sewer system some twenty-five years ago and who was charged eighteen dollars per year for the service at a time when residents of Texarkana paid nothing. But assuming that petitioner has no duty to serve, it does not follow, under the common-law rule at least, that having elected to serve it may do so on such terms as it chooses to impose.
Nearby Cities. Law, Trades Council, Tex.
Russell, City Atty. Na szczęście dla nich Internet okazuje się wspaniałą drogą do zaspokojenia ich potrzeb, również bez utraty ani grosza. The ordinary ification of the word "terms" in the context of this statute, which contemplates the furnishing of services for pay, certainly trxarkana the idea of connection charges and rates to be paid.
Thrifty nickel louisiana
City of Lexington, Ky. The City of Lexington had for years permitted non-resident suburban citizens to connect with the city sewer system without charge. Moreover, the Davisworth case cited in the first paragraph of this opinion is lcassified later case by the Kentucky court and if there is any conflict the opinion in the Davisworth case is the latest and controlling expression of the Kentucky court.
Texarkana is located in northeast Texas near the Red River. Respondents, all nonresidents of the City of Texarkana, Texas, filed this suit against petitioner, the City, seeking to en it in the operation of its municipally-owned water and sewer systems from charging nonresidents higher water and sewer rates than those texarkaba by persons residing within the corporate limits of the city. Respondents are all residents of the City of North Texarkana, Texas, which ads the petitioner on the north. It seems, therefore, that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed in the face of the plain wording of the statute for two reasons, as follows: 1 "Assuming that" Section 3 of Article "gives the power to fix rates, the granting of such power, without express authority to fix unreasonably discriminatory rates, implies that the rate fixed pursuant thereto shall be, if not reasonable, at least not discriminatory"; and 2 that although a city may fix such rates for non-residents as its discretion directs when it first decides to offer them its utility services, once a rate classiffied fixed "a rate status between the city and its outside customers is thereby established and the city cannot thereafter arbitrarily change the rate so as to discriminate, or further discriminate, between them and customers residing in the city.
The petitioner asserts that "the crux of this case in its final analysis rests upon a construction of section 3, ArticleR.
3, texarkana isd students were classified as african american during the school year | education daily wire
The case of City of Montgomery v. We are brought again, then, to what Ameerican apparent from the record of this case: the only difference between consumers who pay more and those who pay less for petitioner's utility service lies in the fact that the former reside north of 29th Street while the latter reside south of 29th Street.
In this case Lexington has done no more than acquiesce in what would be, without its permission, a trespass upon its property by appellants and those similarly situated. It is somewhat difficult to follow the reasoning of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the J. Moreover, the legislature made the authority about as broad as it could be made when it conferred on cities absolute discretion to charge such rates "as may appear to be for the best interest" of the cities.
We are one of the largest publications in the Ark-LA-Tex, We are wanting to let you know. Kenner,Tex. At that time the petitioner purchased from this utility corporation all its property serving the city and surrounding territory, payment being made with proceeds derived from the sale of revenue bonds ly authorized by vote of the citizens of the city.
All in texarkana
Refining Co. This latter contention is based upon the provisions of Articlesection 3, R. Railroad Commission of Texas, Tex.
We do not pass upon the question whether the petitioner is under a legal duty to serve respondents with water and sewage disposal, nor do we pass on the question whether the rates charged by petitioner, whether within or without its corporate limits, are required to be "reasonable" as that term is understood in public utility parlance i. The real reason for the rule that, in so far as treatment of consumers is concerned, the municipally-owned utility is no different from the privately-owned utility is that the economic nature of the business has not changed; it remains a monopoly in spite of the change in ownership.
Thus the rate status established when the service was first offered to non-residents was based on a charge to non-residents eighteen times as great as that made to residents. It will be noted also from the quotation that the Alabama court held that a city could not refuse its water service to non-inhabitants, a holding clearly contrary to all authority found on the subject. Ferguson v.
But when the reasons for the enactment of the statute are considered we think it clear that the legislature did not intend to create a class of consumers against which the city could discriminate for any reason or without reason. It owes no such duty to the citizens of North Texarkana. The Gexarkana essential duties are owed to its inhabitants.
Texarkana, Tyler, United States. Advertise in the American Classifieds Thrifty Nickel Weekly Newspapers in.
Texarkana serviceman classified mia since | news break
The annotation in 4 A. It has never since been cited as authority on the point here in issue by any court of this state or of any other state so far as I have been able to discover. No other utility exists within the area to furnish water and sewer service. C,assified of Galveston v.
American classifieds/thrifty nickel - issuu
But neither the original Americab, nor the amendment, nor a subsequent amendment inimposed any duty on a city to extend its water or sewer lines outside the city limits or to sell its water or sewer services to non-residents. American Classkfied Nickel. Jones, suprawith approval, and in the course of its opinion said: "If the basis for the differential in rates between resident and non-residents of the City of Louisville in this case were merely geographical or residential, the legal consequences would be different.