Summary
In City of Daytona Beach v. Stansfield, 247 So.2d 753 (1st D.C.A.Fla. 1971), the District Court of Appeal affirmed an order of the trial court, enjoining the city from charging by ordinance utility rates in excess of those under a contract to which it had agreed.
Summary of this case from Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Elec. AuthorityOpinion
No. M-500.
April 20, 1971. Rehearing Denied May 24, 1971.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Volusia County, James T. Nelson, J.
Raymond, Wilson, Karl, Conway Barr, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Black, Cobb, Cole, Crotty Sigerson, Daytona Beach, for appellees.
Appellant seeks reversal of a final decree permanently enjoining it from charging certain water customers outside its city limits water rates which are in excess of 133 1/3% of the rates which are charged to in-city customers for the same services, which said maximum rate differential was contractually agreed to by appellant at the time it acquired the water system previously servicing the subject outside areas. Said final decree also commands appellant to account for and refund all charges in excess of the earlier agreed to maximum differential.
We have carefully examined the voluminous record of testimony and exhibits before the trial court and considered the exhaustive briefs and oral arguments of counsel. Such consideration leads us to conclude that the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly supported by the evidence and that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the decree and judgment appealed.
Accordingly, the same is affirmed.
SPECTOR and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
JOHNSON, C.J., dissents.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion of this Court in its affirmance of the lower court's decree and judgment.
It appears to me that the 1954 Agreement fixing the water rates is not enforceable at this date because of the lack of mutuality of obligation. Equity should not enforce such an agreement because of the illegal restriction upon the City's duty and discretion to revise water rates, especially when there had been so many changes as to make the terms of the agreement so unreasonable as to almost make the contract fall within an ultra vires act.
Such agreement deprives the City in making needed improvements or in updating the system because of the limitation of rates to which the City is forced to fall within, therefore is an unlawful attempt to limit the legislative and governmental authority of said City.
Because of these reasons, I think the Agreement should not be enforceable.