
    CITY OF BIRMINGHAM et al. v. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 18, 1914.)
    No. 2492.
    Waters and Water Courses (§ 203) — Water Company — Regulation oh Rates—Contract with Municipality.
    An interlocutory order, enjoining a city from enforcing an ordinance regulating rates to be charged by a water company as in violation of a contract between the parties, affirmed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. §§ 289, 290-299; Dec. Dig. § 203.]
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama; Wm. I. Grubb, Judge.
    Suit in equity by the Birmingham Waterworks Company against the City of Birmingham and the Board of Commissioners of the City of Birmingham. From an order granting a preliminary injunction, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    For opinion below, see 211 Fed. 497.
    Romaine Boyd and M. M. Ullman. both of Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.
    Frank Spurlock, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and John London and Walker Percy, both of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
    Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the District Court (211 Fed. 497) restraining the appellants from enforcing “an ordinance to regulate the terms and rates of furnishing water to private consumers in the city of Birmingham.”

The record contains an elaborate opinion of the District Judge, in which he reviews the decisions of the United States and state courts upon the questions involved. We regard the conclusion announced by him as correct, and are therefore of opinion that the order should be affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.  