George Shiras, Jr.

“ It cannot be seriously contended that, under the act of March 18, 1886, authorizing the city to provide for the erection and maintenance of a system of waterworks, and to contract with a party or parties to build and operate waterworks, and under the ordiance of the city of November 18, 1896, providing for a supply of water to the city and its inhabitants by contracting with Samuel R. Bullock & Company, their associates, successors, and assigns, and the acceptance of said ordinance by Samuel R. Bullock & Company, no contract was entered into. ”

“ Addressing ourselves, then, to a consideration of the contents of the bill, original and supplemental, we encounter a very long and somewhat confusing narrative of the facts of the case. We do not think it necessary to state those facts in full in this opinion, but shall confine our attention to the allegations in which questions arising under the laws or Constitution of the United States are claimed to arise. ”

“ It is further contended that the bill does not disclose any actual proceeding on the part of the city to displace complainant's rights under the contract, that mere apprehension that illegal action may be taken by the city cannot be the basis of enjoining such action, and that therefore the circuit court did right in dismissing the bill. We cannot accede to this contention. It is one often made in cases where bills in equity are filed to prevent anticipated and threatened action. ”