Citations
- 152 Cal. 579
Full opinion text
SHAW, J.
The defendant is a corporation engaged in supplying water to certain parts of the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena, respectively, for the use of the respective inhabitants thereof within said territories, and to the said cities, respectively, for sprinkling of streets. The territory thus supplied within South Pasadena embraces from one half to two thirds of its area. This suit is to enjoin the defendant from selling and transferring to the city of Pasadena its water, water-rights, water plant or system and all franchises and property of any and every description heretofore used by the defendant in so supplying said water to the plaintiff and its inhabitants, as aforesaid. It appears that the defendant is about to make such transfer, so far as it has the lawful power to do so. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained and thereupon judgment was given for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals. The record further shows that an answer was filed with the demurrer, that plaintiff demurred to the answer and moved to strike out certain parts thereof, and that this demurrer was overruled and the motion denied. As we have concluded that the demurrer to the complaint was properly' sustained, the other orders are immaterial to the disposition of the appeal.
It is proper to say here that two other cases, namely: Graham v. Pasadena Land and Water Company, L. A. No. 1957, post, p. 596, [93 Pac. 498], and Orcutt v. Pasadena Land and Water Company and the City of Pasadena, L. A. No. 1958, post, p. 599, [93 Pac. 497], the latter begun by residents of South Pasadena, entitled to water from the defendant water company, and the former by a stockholder of tiie defendant herein, to obtain similar relief, were submitted with this case and that, as requested by counsel, the briefs in ‘those cases have been considered in this ease, so far as applicable.
The appellant presents for our determination four questions :
First—Has the Pasadena Land and Water Company, while it continues to exist as a going corporation and without the .assent of the state, power or authority to transfer its entire property, privileges, and franchises and thereby discharge itself of the duty and deprive itself of the ability to continue the public service of supplying water to the plaintiff and its people ?
Second—Has the state consented to such transfer ?
Third—Has the city of Pasadena, to which the transfer is to be made, power to accept said property, privileges, and franchises and to perform the duties to the plaintiff and its people hitherto imposed upon and performed by the Pasadena Land and Water Company, and which constitute a charge upon the property to be transferred?
Fourth—If such power is possessed by the respective corporations, as aforesaid, can the subsequent performance of such duties by the city of Pasadena be enforced by the city of South Pasadena and its inhabitants entitled to the water, or only by the grantor, the Pasadena Land and Water Company?
The first, second, and fourth of these propositions will be considered together.
1. The respondent is a g-M