Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/475

RECENT CASES 439 ingly, after notice of termination by G's executor, the only relief wotild be on the above equitable grounds. Public Service Companies — Specific Performance — Conditions TO Granting Relief. — The plaintiff contracted to furnish the defendant city with water and light, together with a certain number of hydrants and arc lamps for the use of which the city was to pay a specified rental. Owing to the direction in which the city had grown, certain of the hydrants and lights were useless, and others were not advantageously located. The city refused to go on with the contract. Held, specific performance wiU be granted subject to the equitable modifications of the contract that certain hydrants and fights be relocated. La Follette v. La Follette Water, Light, 6* Tel. Co., 252 Fed. 762 (C. C. A., 6th Circuit, Tenn.). If unforeseen contingencies produce hardship in the performance of a con- tract, specific performance may be granted with such modifications as justice requires. King v. Raab, 123 la. 632, 99 N. W. 306; Wright v. Vocation Organ Co., 148 Fed. 209. But mere hardship resulting from foreseeable circum- stances wiU not prevent complete rehef to the plaintiff. Franklin Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 145 U. S. 459; Clark v. Hutzler, 96 Va. 73, 30 S. E. 469. On this ground the principal case is wrong. The result, however, is correct on the principle that a public utility must furnish reasonable service. A utility may not contract that it be relieved of its pubUc duty. Inter-Ocean Pub. Co. V. Associated Press, 184 111. 438, 56 N. E. 822; Smith v. Gold &• Stock Tel. Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.) 454. Then, as in the instant case, if the performance of a contract conflicts with the legal duty of the utility to render reasonable service, the contract is unlawful. See 32 Harv. L. Rev. 74, 79. This prin- ciple is also illustrated by the regulation of fares according to the necessities of adequate service, despite prior stipulations fixing the rate. Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus, 180 U. S. 624; Arlington Board of Survey v. Bay State St. Ry., 224 Mass. 463, 113 N. E. 273. Some courts, however, have put the regulation of rates under the police power. See 32 Harv. L. Rev. 74, and cases cited. It would seem to follow that a special contract would have no effect whatever. But it is not futile. The consumer under the contract should be bound to accept the service of the utility, whereas if there were no con- tract, he could refuse. The only limitation on this service is that it be reason- able at all times. Res Judicata — What Judgments are Conclusive — Award of Jus- tices OF THE Peace. — A statute provided that every person who shall care- lessly damage any lamp-post belonging to the Electric Light Company shall pay by way of satisfaction to the company an amount not exceeding £5, as any two justices or the sheriff shall think reasonable. The plaintiff, in his suit before the justices, was awarded £5, and now seeks to recover for the additional damage; the extent of the damage being £29. Held, that the award by the justices made the matter res judicata. Birmingham Corporation v. Samuel Allsopp and Sons, Ltd., 145 L. T. 454. The statute involved in the principal case did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing suit before a tribunal competent to award full compensation. Crystal Palace Gas Co. v. Idris &* Co., 82 L. T. R. 200. The case then comes within the rule that a judgment by a justice of the peace is a bar to another proceeding on the same cause of action. Worral v. Des Moines Retail Grocers' Ass., 157 Iowa, 385, 138 N. W. 481; Liscum v. Henderson Sturgis Piano Co., 44 Okla. 549, 145 Pac. 773. See Brundsen v. Humphrey, 14 Q. B. D. 141, 145. Even if the plaintiff objects that the award is inadequate, the rule is still applicable. Wright v. London General Omnibus Co., 2 Q. B. D. 271. Cf. Bilyeu v. Pitcher, 16 Okla. 228, 83 Pac. 546; Pitcher v. Ligo?i. 91