In the case of Los Angeles Water Company _vs._ City of Los Angeles (103 U. S., 711), the United States Courts held that at the expiration of a 30-year franchise, which provided that the city was to pay for the value of all improvements, when the city failed to agree upon, tender, or pay such value, so long as the company complied with the terms of the contract, and until the city terminated it by making or tendering payment, the passage of an ordinance by the city fixing rates was void. In the case of Weatherly _vs._ Capital City Water Company (Ala. 22 So., 140), the Alabama Courts held that the acceptance of a franchise involved a grave responsibility, and that the company could not stop furnishing water and fire protection, even if the work was done at a loss. In the case of Myer _vs._ Brown (65 Cal., 589), the Court said: "It is well occasionally to recall the fact that there is no more reason to permit a municipal government to repudiate its obligations entered into for value, than to permit an individual to do so. Good faith and fair dealing should be exacted of one equally with the other." Judge Brewer, in the Kansas City Water-Works case (62 Fed. Rep., 853), said: "All contracts involving property rights and obligations, between municipalities and individuals, must be presumed to be based upon and to recognize the ordinary laws of business transactions." In 1903 the Maine Supreme Court issued a set of instructions to appraisers appointed to fix values of certain properties. The Court set forth its views as follows: "Summarized, these elemental principles are, the right of the company to derive a fair income based upon the fair value of the property at the time it is being used for the public, taking into account the cost of maintenance and depreciation and the current operating expenses, and the right of the public to demand that the rates shall be no higher than the services are worth to them, not in the aggregate, but as individuals." The Supreme Court of the United States has again and again given its views, which may be summarized as follows: "It cannot be said that a corporation is entitled, as of right, without reference to the interests of the public, to realize a given per cent. upon its capital stock. When a question arises whether the legislature has exceeded its constitutional powers in prescribing rates to be charged by a corporation controlling a public highway, stockholders are not the only persons whose rights and interests are to be considered. The rights of the public are not to be ignored. * * * * *