*6 ., ~.   r ~ FEDEIDALMREPORTER. .» -  
right to supply themselves with water if the complainants have not the
»-faIt‘ilitiesv,therefor. ·· Wherever, t therefore, the com plain‘ant;»_has; no mains
on; tho*str,eet onwhich the defendantsbproperty·supplied;or-to be sup-
plied, with water is situated, or wherever,there?a1‘e mains, bu_t they
are inadequate to furnish the amount of water requisite for the defend-
ants’ use, the_injunction,is refused. Wheneverthe. defendants desire,
the matter as to whether there are mains, or whether they are ade-
quate, may be referred to a master totake the evidence, and report the
fsamepwithjhis conclusions, to the court. Q _
Q2,   theplause with referenceto "contiguous rpsrseusy The grant
is (section 5) "of the exclusive privilege of supplying the city of New
Orleans and its inhabitants withlwater from the Mississippi river, or
any other stream or river, by means of pipesand conduits." The charter
‘ further,_provides;(inter aha) that theiwater-works company "may have
the rightto levy andplace-anynumber of conduits or pipes or aque-
ducts,,and, tocleanse and repair the same, through or over any of the
lands,orstreetsof‘ the city of New Orleans." Section 18 of the charter
provides Gthut nothing in this actishall be so construed as to prevent the
city council [from`°granting toanyperson or persons, contiguous to the
river, the privilege of laying pipes to the river, exclusively for his or
their own use." N
In Water- Works Cb. v. Rivers, 115 U. S.`674, 6 S·up.`Ct. Rep. .273,
the supreme court decided that the proprietor of the St. Charles Hotel
was not·‘Fa.' contiguous ··person." ,.The St. Charles Hotel is five blocks
, from the river. It being settled that it is not contiguous, it seems to
me that no lot can be contiguous 'unless it actually fronts on the- river,
'or is separated from the river only by a public highway, with no private
A owner intervening, or possibly on a block or square so situated. There
- is uoline of demarkation short ofthis; for, in-a broad sense,. the whole
city of New Orleans is contiguous to the Mississippi river.
.. I think that theouestion of contiguity musthave been meant to be
determined by present circumstances. The limitation in the eighteenth
section ofthe charter presupposes a right . already existing which is rec-
·ognized», notcreated-. If an owner had been, but is not now, within the
_ ·meaning of theterm, "contiguous,?’;as here used,.hisformer right would
, ·have,passed, from him along with all other rights dependent upon con-
tinued, present contiguity. Itfollows, no one of the defendants is a
;person contiguous to the Mississippi river except Louis Ruch. »His
property is {separated from the river only by a streeti or public highway,
and he is a ‘Foontiguous person.," s  
. 3. As to .the._price tobe charged fore the deliveryjof water. The su-
preme court 0f,»our*state have construed the provision of the charter as
4to what should be the maximum price or rate. This rate must not be
· 6XOB8d6d. =* ;·,‘: 2   . ; ,   { ’ " , l · -
» The injunction is_refused~ asto defendant Ruch, and as to the de·
fendant theNéW Orleans City Railroad Company, to the extent to which
there are no mains on the street adjacent to the places where they re·
quire and obtain water. In the other cases the injunction will issue. _