COMPANIES.
A municipal corporation having power to light its own streets, and erect and maintain gas works has implied power to contract with others to do so; City of Newport v. Light Co., 84 Ky. 166. A municipal council exceeds its power, in granting an exclusive privilege; Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Avondale, 43 Ohio St. 257, 1 N. E. 527; at least, without legislative authority; 3 Cent. Rep. (Pa.) 921. The authority to lay mains and pipes in streets and provide gas does not,give an exduSive right to the use of the streets for that purpose; Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City of Hamilton, 21 Ohio L. Z. 94.
A city engaged in making and selling gas is quoed hoc a private corporation, not leg islating but making contracts which bind it as a natural person, and cannot be impaired by the legislature ; Western Say. Fund So ciety of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, 31 Pa. 175, 72 Am. Dec. 730.
The grant of an exclusive privilege is a eontract none the less because the business requires supervision by public authority, and such grant does not restrict the power of regulation by the state ; New Orleans Gas light Co. v. Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516. A grant by a city, under legislative authority, of an exclusive privilege for a term of years of supplying the city with gas, does not prevent the city from erecting its own gas works under a state law giving it power to do so; Hamilton Gas light & Coke Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U. S. 258, 13 Sup. Ct. 90, 36 L. Ed. 963; the grant of an exclusive' privilege with an option to the city to buy the plant does not bind the city to maintain it when the sale of the plant is refused, but the city must elect whether it will purchase at the price fixed by referees before they are chosen, and until the city does so agree it is not a breach of contract for the company to refuse to join in select ing referees; Montgomery Gaslight Co. v.
City Council, 87 Ala. 245, 6 South. 113, 4 L. R. A. 616. Under a grant for a term of years of the exclusive privilege for this pur pose, the right to use the streets for light other than gas is not implied and must be authorized ; City of Newport v. Light Co., 89 Ky. 454, 12 S. W. 1040, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 840. In this case it was held that the city had power to contract with another person for electric lighting, and pay for both gas and electricity, but it could not dispense, with the gas company's gas without liability for breach of contract. When an exclusive privilege of lighting the city and using the streets was given by the city to one company for a term of years, in consideration of low rates to citizens, it did not estop the munici pal corporation from subscribing to the stock of a new gas company seeking to introduce gas; Memphis v. Dean, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 64, 19 L. Ed. 326. As to municipal authority to light streets, see Opinion of Justices, 150 Mass. 592, 24 N. E. 1084, 8 L. R. A. 487, note;