Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur
Headline: Court affirms city’s power to force a regional railway to keep operating a Decatur line and to charge a five-cent fare, blocking the company’s attempt to stop service or raise that fare.
Holding: The Court upheld the city’s decree requiring the railway to continue operating the Decatur segment and to honor its 1903 five-cent fare contract, finding the franchise and rate agreement remain in force and enforceable.
- Requires the company to keep operating the Decatur line and charge five-cent fares.
- Prevents the company from abandoning service after offering to surrender the permit.
- Limits a utility’s ability to raise fares where a valid city contract fixes the rate.
Summary
Background
The city of Decatur sued a regional railway company that operated street and suburban lines after the company offered to stop running about a mile of track and to surrender its permit. In 1903 the city and an earlier railway company made a contract requiring a five-cent fare and transfer rights for riders on that Decatur stretch. The carrier later became part of a larger system and was subject to state fare orders elsewhere, but previous Georgia courts held that state regulators could not change rates fixed by contract.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the railway still had to run the line and keep the five-cent fare after changes in ownership and the possible expiration of an earlier charter. The Court accepted the state court’s reading that the franchise granted to the later-chartered company covered the line and that nothing in the ordinance or contract showed an intent to end the obligation. Because the contract and franchise remain in force, the Court held the city could enforce continued operation and the five-cent fare. The carrier’s claim that forcing it to run the line would unlawfully take its property failed because the losses from the stretch are immaterial while the contract binds the company.
Real world impact
The result forces the carrier to operate the Decatur segment and charge the agreed five-cent fare while the contract persists. It blocks the company’s attempt to stop service after a local paving assessment and a notice of discontinuance. The ruling shows that valid municipal contracts limiting fares and requiring service can be enforced against successor operators.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?