Gilbert, J.
The court did not err in refusing an injunction. Under the allegations of the petition, including the deed, we can not hold as a matter of law that the defendant was obligated to supply water for the sprinkler system of the warehouse without payment of the customary and reasonable charges for supplying such water, as in the case of other customers.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
The defendant demurred to the petition, upon the following grounds: (1) It does not set out a cause of action; (2) considered as a whole it shows petitioner has no right to the relief sought; (3) the habendum clause of the deed is not subject to the construction placed upon the same by petitioner, and does not mean that petitioner obtained the right to have and enjoy the use and benefit of said water system with water, pressure at all times. The bill of exceptions recites: “At the hearing it was agreed by the parties thereto that the said demurrer raised the questions of law as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief prayed, and that the decision of the court on said questions raised by said demurrer would and should control the case, and would determine the rights of both parties to the case.” The order of the court denying the relief sought recites: “Opposing counsel at the hearing agreed that the case would turn upon the construction of the deed, and submitted the case to the court to construe the habendum clause of the deed.” Error was assigned upon the judgment of the court refusing to grant an injunction..
I. N. Cheney and Edwards & Edwards, for plaintiff.
E. S. Griffith, for defendant.