PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES in general seems plain, but it requires some discrimination to state it in legal terms. Edwards, the chancellor who disposed of the actual case, puts it very well indeed: "It sufficiently appears that the disincli nation 01 refusal of the defendant to serve the plaintiff on the same terms and in the same manner in which it serves the rest of the public is because plaintiff is a competi tor of defendant in the carriage or coupe" business aforesaid; defendant claiming that while it may be true that it is bound to serve the public in general and on like terms under like circumstances, it is not bound to so serve a competitor in the same business with itself. It sufficiently appears that the demands of plaintiff are reasonable and necessary, to enable it to serve the public properly and efficiently, and that plaintiff is ready, able, and willing to con form to all reasonable regulations of defen dant. The real contention between plaintiff and defendant is confined to their carriage and coupe services; defendant insisting that, as against plaintiff, a rival in that business, it has the right to a monopoly of the use of its own telephone methods of communicat ing and receiving orders for coupe's; and that a mere rival in one branch of its business cannot force it to afford it the facilities which it has provided for another branch of its business. Upon the facts appearing upon the petition and affidavits of the plaintiff, it is the opinion of the court that defen dant is engaged in two distinct employ ments — one in operating a telephonic ex change, and the other in operating a carriage or coupe" service. Plaintiff and defendant are not rivals in the former business and, as to that part of defendant's business, it occupies the same position toward plaintiff as it does toward the rest of the public; that defendant is a quasi-public servant, and as such, is bound to serve the general public, including the plaintiff on reasonable terms •with impartiality. " *
291
Ill
An equally extreme case of unfair action may be seen in Mobile v. Bienville Water Supply Company (ijo Ala. 379). In that case it was averred that the city, the original defendant, had constructed a sewerage sys tem and at the same time had constructed water-works, while the complainant water supply company had been for a considerable time engaged in purveying -water throughout the city to private consumers. Tt was com plained that the city had never fixed any rate for the use of its sewers alone, but it would not allow any customers of com plainant's water to connect with or use its sewers, except at the same price as the city charged for both its water and sewers together, in effect forcing its citizens and inhabitants to take the water of the city, or to pay for the water of complainant in addition to what each citizen would have to pay for the city's water and sewerage together, discriminating, it was alleged, against complainant and making it, in effect, furnish water for nothing, or to lose its cus tomers by reason of the double charges so imposed on them; and that the city through its officers and agents threatened the people of Mobile that they would not be allowed to use the sewers, unless they subscribed for and took the city water, and that they would not be allowed to use the water of complain ant in connection with the city's sewers. Obviously this was unfair competition, be cause in defiance of the public duty of the city to give either service at a fair rate for each. The language of Mr. Justice Harelson in granting an injunction is well worth quoting; "Whether intended by the city to so operate or not, one can scarcely conceive of a more effective scheme to deprive the complainant of its customers than the one alleged in the bill. If complainant has to furnish its cusjtomers with water, and they are required by 1 Compare People ex rel. Postal Telegraph Co. v. the city to pay for sewerage the same price Hudson River Telephone Co. 19 Abb. N. C. 466 — it charges its own customers for its water accord.
