contract rights-for such they are.1182 Questions concerning the revocation of a grant if properly presented become under these circumstances Federal questions and within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts as provided by law. Grant of same privilege to others. While it is true that a grant or license of the character under discussion cannot be illegally revoked or impaired, as above stated, yet, where the grant, privilege or license is not exclusive in its character, the grant of a similar privilege to others to engage in the same business or even the erection of a competing plant by the public corporation itself does not result in an impairment of the prior grant." City of Belleville v. Citizens' Horse R. Co., 152 Ill. 171, 26 L. R. A. 681; Tudor v. Chicago & S. S. Rapid Transit R. Co., 154 Ill. 129, 39 N. E. 136; City R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind.) 52 N. E. 157; Board of Com'rs of Hamilton County v. Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co., 134 Ind. 209, 33 N. E. 972; City of Newport v. Newport Light Co., 84 Ky. 166; City of Louisville v. Wible, 84 Ky. 290; East Louisiana R. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 526, 15 So. 157; Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Town of Monroe, 48 La. Anu. 1102; Proprietors of Bridges v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beasl.) 81; Theberath City of Newark, 57 N. J. Law, 309, 30 Atl. 528; Suburban Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of East Orange (N. J. Eq.) 41 Atl. 865; Phillipsburg Elec. Lighting, Heating & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of Phillipsburg, 66 N. J. Law, 505, 49 Atl. 445; Agua Pura Co. of Las Vegas v. City of Las Vegas, 10 N. M. 6, 60 Pac. 208; City of New York v. New York & H. R. Co., 10 Misc. 417, 31 N. Y. Supp. 147; People v. Deehan, 11 App. Div. 175, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1071; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 111; New York Sanitary Utilization Co. v. Department of Public V. 1183 Health, 32 Misc. 577, 67 N. Y. Supp. 324; Bennett Water Co. v. Borough of Millvale, 202 Pa. 616, 51 Atl. 1098; Galveston & W. R. Co. v. City of Galveston (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 27. But see Wilmington City R. Co. v. Peoples' R. Co. (Del. Ch. App.) 47 Atl. 245; United Railways & Elec. Co. v. Hayes, 92 Md. 490, 48 Atl. 364. Under Baltimore City Charter of 1898 all grants and franchises are revocable. & 1182 American Water-works Guarantee Co. v. Home Water Co., 115 Fed. 171; Little Falls Elec. & Water Co. v. City of Little Falls, 102 Fed. 663; Cleveland City R. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385; Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. Collins Park & B. R. Co., 99 Fed. 812; Chicago Municipal Gas Light & Fuel Co. v. Town of Lake, 130 Ill. 42, 22 N. E. 616; State v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974, 15 S. W. 383. See § 927, post. See, also, cases cited in preceding note. 1183 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420; Skaneateles Water-works Co. V. Village of Skaneateles, 184 U. S. 354, affirming 161 N. Y. 154, 55 N. E. 562; Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile, 95 Fed. 539. Newburyport Water Co. v. City of § 920. Forfeiture of grant. The license or grant may be made, however, dependent upon the performance of certain conditions by the licensee. If these conditions are not complied with, the license or privilege may be forfeited in the manner provided.1184 The arbitrary right, how Newburyport, 103 Fed. 584. "Where the state grants a franchise to a corporation, and subsequently grants a similar franchise to another corporation, the question of a taking may be considered from three points of view: Where the first grant is not exclusive, the subsequent grant is not a taking which entitles the owner of the first franchise to compensation. Where the first grant is exclusive, the grant of a rival franchise is a taking, and just compensation must be made. Where the first grant is exclusive, the grant of a similar franchise does not constitute a taking requiring compensation, when the state, by its constitution of state law, has reserved to itself the power to repeal, alter, or amend charters granted by the legislature. Such reservation becomes a part of the charter of every corporation. The franchise rights granted to the company by its charter were not exclusive. This is not disputed. We have been presented the question whether the subsequent grant to the city of the right to build competing waterworks constituted a taking of the plaintiff's property or franchise. It is the settled law of this country, established by the decisions of the federal and state courts, that such a grant is not a taking of a former franchise, giving any right to compensation." Fall v. Sutter County, 21 Cal. 237; Hughes v. City of Momence, 163 Ill. 535, 45 N. E. 300; Atlantic City Water-works Co. V. Consumers Water Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 427, 15 Atl. 581; Inhabitants of Franklin V. Nutley Water Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 601; Oswego Falls Bridge Co. v. Fish, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 547. Smith v. Town of Westerly, 19 R. I. 437, 35 Atl. 526. A town is not bound by a contract which extends the authority conferred upon it by statute. Trent v. Cartersville Bridge Co., 11 Leigh (Va.) 529. See, also, the following cases considering exclusive privileges and the protection to be granted them against competition: Hartford Bridge Co. v. Town of East Hartford, 16 Conn. 149; Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co., 17 Conn. 454; Washington Bridge Co. v. State, 18 Conn. 53; Hartford Bridge Co. v. Union Ferry Co., 29 Conn. 210. 1184 Louisville Trust Co. v. City of Cincinnati (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. 296. A failure for twenty years to maintain a highway on certain streets included in a license will operate as an abandonment of the grant in respect to these streets. City of Chicago v. Chicago & W. I. R. Co., 105 Ill. 73. A street railway was granted the license to lay its tracks on the express condition that they should be constructed within a year. The failure to perform this condition caused by injunctions and interference of police officers acting under the direction ever, of a municipal corporation to revoke or declare forfeited license rights does not ordinarily exist; 1185 the reasonable rights of the mayor of the city cannot be made the occasion for a revocation of the license. New Orleans, C. & L. R. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 748, 11 So. 77. A city may be estopped to declare a forfeiture if it permits without interference a street railroad to construct its line in a forfeited street. West Springfield & A. St. R. Co. v. Bodurtha, 181 Mass. 583, 64 N. E. 414; Whiting v. Village of New Baltimore, 127 Mich. 66, 86 N. W. 403; St. Louis & M. R. Co. v. City of Kirkwood, 159 Mo. 239, 60 S. W. 110, 53 L. R. A. 300. Kitchell v. Manchester Road Elec. R. Co., 79 Mo. App. 340. The failure on the part of a street railroad company to complete its road in conformance with or within the time limited by its franchise cannot be taken advantage of in a suit to enjoin its operation by a private individual unless he can snow peculiar injury to himself. Water Supply Co. of Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 9 N. M. 441, 54 Pac. 969. One of the conditions of the grant under consideration was to furnish an agreed quantity of water for "city purposes." The court held that the water company could not be required to furnish water to the board of education for use in public schools under this condition as it was not a "city purpose." City of New York v. New York Refrigerating Const. Co., 8 Misc. 61, 28 N. Y. Supp. 614. Village of Bolivar v. Bolivar Water Co., 62 App. Div. 484, 70 N. Y. Supp. 750; Burke v. Carbondale Traction Co., 3 Lаck. Jur. (Pa.) 297; Han num v. Media, M., A. & C. Elec. R. Co., 200 Pa. 44, 49 Atl. 789; Township of Plymouth v. Chestnut Hill & N. R. Co., 168 Pa. 181, 32 Atl. 19. The fact that the company acted in good faith and that the revocation caused it great hardship is a ground for permitting it to continue in its work. Wright v. Milwaukee Elec. R. & Light Co., 95 Wis. 29, 69 N. W. 791, 36 L. R. A. 47. Conditions considered and not held sufficient to constitute an abandonment so as to extinguish a franchise. Kaukauna Elec. Light Co. v. City of Kaukauna, 114 Wis. 327, 89 N. W. 542. Condi tion considered in this case a stipu lation on the part of the company to bury its wires when required. State v. Janesville Water Power Co., 92 Wis. 496, 66 N. W. 512, 32 L. R. A. 391. The doctrine of estoppel may apply as against the city or a municipality in respect to an illegal act. Wright v. Milwaukee Elec. R. & Light Co., 95 Wis. 29, 69 N. W. 791, 36 L. R. A. 47. Nonuser of a street railway franchise for a period of four years under the circumstances in the case was here held not to constitute such an abandonment as to warrant its for feiture. But see Dern v. Salt Lake City R. Co., 19 Utah, 46, 56 Pac. 556, where it is held that a street railway company having operated its lines for a period of twenty. seven years and no proceedings having been taken to forfeit its franchise, all deficiencies will be considered to have been waived. 1185 New Orleans Water-works Co. v. St. Tammany Water-works of the parties should be determined by a judicial tribunal having jurisdiction and before which the question is properly presented.11s Grounds for a forfeiture may exist with reference to portions of a license or grant; where the unquestioned right of forfeiture exists as to these, the remaining parts of the grant will not be forfeited.1187 Conditions ordinarily imposed especially where the commodity supplied is water or light, are those which require the grantee to furnish a sufficient supply of the commodity or at a designated pressure 1188 or one that reaches Co., 14 Fed. 194; Foster v. City of Joliet, 27 Fed. 899, affirmed 30 Law. Ed., 942; Citizens' St. R. Co. v. City of Memphis, 53 Fed. 715; Santa Rosa City R. Co. v. Central St. Co. (Cal.) 38 Pac. 986. A forfeiture of a street railroad franchise is not affected by the grant of the same rights by the city to another company. City of Kankakee v. Kankakee Water Co., 38 Ill. App. 620. Where notice is required by contract, the giving of notice is necessary. Chicago Gen. R. Co. v. Chicago City R. Co., 62 Ill. App. 502; Township of Plymouth v. Chestnut Hill & N. R. Co., 168 Pa. 181, 32 Atl. 19. The commonwealth alone can move for the forfeiture of a street railroad charter for a failure to construct its road within the time fixed by statute. But see Coverdale v. Edwards, 155 Ind. 374, 58 N. E. 495. 1186 Streator v. Village of Ashtabula, 98 Fed. 516; Citizens' Horse R. Co. v. City of Belleville, 47 Ill. App. 388; Peoples' Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406; Phillipsburg Elec. Lighting, Heating & Power Co v. Inhabitants of Phillipsburg, 66 N. J. Law, 505, 49 Atl. 445; Galveston & W. R. Co. v. City of Galveston, 90 Tex. 398, 39 S. W. 96, 36 L. R. A. 33. But see Galveston City R. Co. v. Gulf City St. R. Co., 63 Tex. 529, which holds that the right to occupy streets given by a city to a street railway company is a mere license, not a contract, and upon abandonment the city can confer the right on another company without first procuring a decree of forfeiture. 1187 Levis v. City of Newton, 75 Fed. 884. The rule applies also to a grant void in part because ultra vires. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank v. Arkansas City (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. 271, 34 L. R. A. 518; City of Greenville v. Greenville Water-works Co., 125 Ala. 625, 27 So. 764; City R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind.) 52 N. E. 157; New York Cable Co. v. City of New York, 104 N. Y. 1. 1188 New Orleans Water-works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674; Capital City Water Co. v. State, 105 Ala. 406, 18 So. 62, 29 L. R. A. 743; City of Grand Haven v. Grand Haven Water-works Co., 99 Mich. 106, 57 N. W. 1075; Burns v. City of Fairmont, 28 Neb. 866, 45 N. W. 175; Borough of Almsted v. Morris Aqueduct, 46 N. J. Law, 495; Easton v. Lehigh Water Co., 97 Pa. 554; Du Bois Borough v. Du Bois City Water-works Co., 176 Pa. 430, 35 Atl. 248, 34 L. R. A. 92. If the contract provides for water from a certain source, no objection can be made if it proves inadequate. City of Sherman v. Connor, 88 Tex. 35, 29 S. W. 1053. 1190 a certain standard of purity or quality.1189 A failure to comply with such conditions may lead to a refusal to pay charges or it may be the occasion for a forfeiture or revocation of rights granted by the license or under the contract.1191 The existence of circumstances, however, sufficient to warrant the latter action is a question for judicial determination unless by the terms of the grant an arbitrary right is given to the public authorities. A substantial compliance as a rule is all that is required especially in respect to non-essentials or minor details, and the principle. also obtains that a municipal corporation should not be permitted to make captious objections to either the quantity or quality of water for the sole purpose of depreciating the value of works which it has an option to purchase.1192 A public corporation may also be estopped by acquiescence or waiver in certain conditions. to claim a forfeiture.1193 Ordinarily, the failure of a licensee to 1189 Capital City Water Co. V. State, 105 Ala. 406, 18 So. 62; Henry v. City of Sacramento, 116 Cal. 628, 48 Pac. 728; Winfield Water Co. v. City of Winfield, 51 Kan. 104, 33 Pac. 714; Light, Heat & Water Co. v. City of Jackson, 73 Miss. 598; Danaher v. City of Brooklyn, 119 N. Y. 241, 23 N. E. 745, 7 L. R. A. 592; Com. V. Towanda Waterworks (Pa.) 15 Atl. 440; Brymer v. Butler Water Co., 172 Pa. 489; Palestine Water & Power Co. v. City of Palestine, 91 Tex. 540, 44 S. W. 814, 40 L. R. A. 203. But see Grand Junction Water Co. v. City of Grand Junction, 14 Colo. App. 424, 60 Pac. 196. 1190 Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile, 112 Ala. 260, 20 So. 742, 33 L. R. A. 59; City of Kankakee v. Kankakee Water Co., 38 Ill. App. 620. The rule will not apply to water used, or for water furnished fire hydrants. See, also, as holding same, City Council of Montgomery v. Montgomery Waterworks, 79 Ala. 233; Adrian Waterworks Co. v. City of Adrian, 64 Mich. 584, 31 N. W. 529. See cases cited in preceding notes. 1191 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. City of Galesburg, 133 U. S. 156; Capital City Water Co. v. State, 105 Ala. 406, 18 So. 62, 29 L. R. A. 743; State v. New Orleans Water-works Co., 107 La. 1, 31 So. 395; State Trust Co. v. City of Duluth, 70 Minn. 257, 73 N. W. 249; Palestine Water & Power Co. v. City of Palestine, 91 Tex. 540, 44 S. W. 814, 40 L. R. A. 203. But see City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U. S. 1. 1192 Cherryvale Water Co. V. Cherryvale, 65 Kan. 219, 69 Pac. 176; Aurora Water Co. v. City of Aurora, 129 Mo. 540, 31 S. W. 946; Bennett Water Co. v. Borough of Millvale, 202 Pa. 616, 51 Atl. 1098. 1193 Creston Water-works Co. v. City of Creston, 101 Iowa, 687, 70 N. W. 739; Wiley v. Inhabitants of Athol, 150 Mass. 426, 23 N. E. 311, 6 L. R. A. 342; City of Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co., 66 Mich. 606, 33 N. W. 749; Lamar Water & Elec. Co. v. City of Lamar, |