Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

New Orleans Water Works Company v. New Orleans

• 1896 • 164 U.S. 471 • Fuller Court
In the case of New Orleans Water Works Company v. New Orleans in 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a private water company and the city of New Orleans regarding contract rights. The court held that when a municipality grants an exclusive franchise to provide public services such as water supply, it cannot later grant another similar franchise without violating its original agreement. In this case, after granting an exclusive right to supply water to the city for fifty years to...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1896
Docket: 134
164 U.S. 471
17 S. Ct. 161
41 L. Ed. 518
1896 U.S. LEXIS 1884
Argued: Nov 04, 1896

New Orleans Water Works Company v. New Orleans

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of New Orleans Water Works Company v. New Orleans in 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a private water company and the city of New Orleans regarding contract rights. The court held that when a municipality grants an exclusive franchise to provide public services such as water supply, it cannot later grant another similar franchise without violating its original agreement. In this case, after granting an exclusive right to supply water to the city for fifty years to one company (New Orleans Water Works), the city then granted another twenty-five-year contract for part of those same services to another entity (The Sewerage and Water Board). The court found that this second grant violated its initial agreement with New Orleans Water Works because it infringed upon their exclusivity rights under their existing contract. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the plaintiff -the private water company- stating that municipalities must honor contracts made with private entities.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for New Orleans Water Works Company v. New Orleans, it was argued that the city of New Orleans had no right to terminate its contract with the water company prematurely without providing compensation. The justices contended that a clause in their agreement allowed for termination only if there were an inability to supply water or a failure on part of the company to fulfill its obligations. They believed this did not apply as neither condition was met and thus, terminating such contract would be unconstitutional under U.S law which prohibits laws impairing contractual obligations. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of Louisiana state constitution asserting it does not grant cities power to annul contracts at will but rather gives them authority over corporations within their jurisdictional limits subject to constitutional restrictions including prohibition against impairment of contracts.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Nov 30, 1896
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms