Mahlon Pitney, City and County of Denver v. Denver Union Water Company Denver Union Water Company…
“ Or it well may be that while a limited franchise is in force the very fact that the Company has to rely upon the returns during the life of the franchise to reimburse its outlay and give it whatever profit it can make, entitles it to returns during that period unaffected by the approach of the end. ”
Mahlon Pitney, City and County of Denver v. Denver Union Water Company Denver Union Water Company…
“ It is hard to see how property could be confiscated by the establishment of almost any rate when whatever value it would have over above that dependent upon the use of the pipes would remain to the Company if it stopped using them and therefore was in the Company's hands to preserve. The ordinance of the city could mean no more than that the Company must accept the city's rates or stop-and as it could be stopped by the city out and out, the general principle is that it could be stopped unless a certain price should be paid. ”
Mahlon Pitney, City and County of Denver v. Denver Union Water Company Denver Union Water Company…
“ Whatever may be the duty of the City toward its inhabitants, that cannot enlarg its obligations to the Company or of the Company to it after the franchise of the latter has expired, or change the meaning of an ordinance that to my mind is plain upon its face. I presume that if it be necessary the City or the Legislature can take the water works by eminent domain.The question is different from that which would arise upon a franchise having but a short time to run but still in force. It might be argued that the short life was a fact to be considered, as no doubt it would be in some connections. ”
