Opinion of the Court.

243 U. S.

plainly non-federal. Both were resolved in favor of the canal company. The other questions, none of which was federal, may be put out of view in this connection. Thus we are concerned with a judgment placed upon two grounds, one involving a federal question and the other not. In such situations our jurisdiction is tested by inquiring whether the non-federal ground is independent of the other and broad enough to sustain the judgment. Where this is the case, the judgment does not depend upon the decision of any federal question and we have no power to disturb it. Hammond v. Johnston, 142 U. S. 73, 78; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 53; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 116; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468; Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 610. It has been so held in cases where the judgment was rested upon a federal ground and also upon an estoppel. Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U. S. 641, 648; Lowry v. Silver City Gold & Silver Mining Co., 179 U. S. 196. But where the non-federal ground is so interwoven with the other as not to be an independent matter, or is not of sufficient breadth to sustain the judgment without any decision of the other, our jurisdiction is plain. See Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205, 208; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 261. And this is true also where the non-federal ground is so certainly unfounded that it properly may be regarded as essentially arbitrary or a mere device to prevent a review of the decision upon the federal question. Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93, 99; Vandalia R. R. Co. v. South Bend, ibid., 359, 367. But, where the non-federal ground has fair support, we are not at liberty to inquire whether it is right or wrong, but must accept it, as we do other state decisions of non-federal questions. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 635; Eustis v. Bolles, supra, p. 369;

1 See also Sherman v. Grinnell, 144 U. S. 198, 202; Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U. S. 658, 660; Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473, 479–480.

Leathe v. Thomas, supra; Arkansas Southern R. R. Co. v. German National Bank, 207 U. S. 270, 275.

It does not, as we think, admit of doubt that the estoppel in pais is made an independent ground of the judgment. Instead of being interwoven with the validity of the state board's adjudication, which is the other ground, it is distinct from it, and is so treated in the court's opinion. In taking up the question of estoppel, as also in concluding its discussion of the subject, the court plainly shows that it is then indulging an assumption that the other ground is not tenable. True, the board's proceedings and adjudication are referred to as having some bearing upon the good faith of the canal company and upon the knowledge which the other parties had of that company's claim, but in this the court neither departs from the assumption indulged nor confuses the two grounds of the judgment. Even if invalid, the board's proceedings and adjudication could well have a real bearing upon the matters indicated.

In view of the facts before recited we think it cannot be said that the ruling upon the question of estoppel is without fair support or so unfounded as to be essentially arbitrary or merely a device to prevent a review of the other ground of the judgment. We therefore are not at liberty to inquire whether the ruling is right or wrong. And it may be well to add that the question did not originate with the court. It was presented by the pleadings, was in the minds of the parties when the stipulation was made, and was dealt with by counsel and court as a matter of obvious importance.

It is not urged, nor could it well be, that as a ground of decision the estoppel is not broad enough to sustain the judgment.

The claim that the court in disposing of some of the questions, including that of the estoppel, misconceived or misapplied the statutory and common law of the State and thereby infringed the due process and equal protection

clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment requires but brief notice. The due process clause does not take up the laws of the several States and make all questions pertaining to them constitutional questions, nor does it enable this court to revise the decisions of the state courts upon questions of state law. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 186; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 683-684. The questions presented, other than those relating to the validity of the state board's adjudication, all turned exclusively upon the law of the State, and the state court's decision of them is controlling. Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447; St. Louis & Kansas City Land Co. v. Kansas City, 241 U. S. 419, 427; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 116. The reference to the equal protection clause evidently is inadvertent, for there is no claim of unwarranted or arbitrary discrimination.

It results from what has been said that the judgment is one which is not open to review by this court.

Writ of error dismissed.

OWENSBORO, KENTUCKY, v. OWENSBORO WATER WORKS COMPANY OF OWENSBORO, KENTUCKY.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

No. 79. Argued November 8, 1916.-Decided March 6, 1917.

A city granted to a water company a franchise to construct and operate water works, using the streets. The ordinance defined the grant as made "for the duration of the said Company" (the grantee), but elsewhere limited the term expressly to twenty-five years from the passage of the ordinance, which also contained a contract for the same period providing that, if, at the city's request, the company

should extend its pipes "during the said term of twenty-five years," the city would rent hydrants thereon "for the unexpired term of said franchise." Some years later, the city granted a similar, substitute franchise to a second company, successor to the first with the city's consent, by an ordinance defining the franchise term as "for and during the existence" of the second company, and recognizing the latter as the successor of the first company in respect of the contract for hydrant rental "as fully as if such existing contract had been originally made" with the second company "without the intervention" of the first. By the law of its creation, the life of the second company was twenty-five years primarily, with the right (reserved in its articles) to prolong the term by twenty-five year extensions.

Held: (1) That the life of the second franchise was not limited to twenty-five years, but was intended to endure while the corporate life of the grantee endured by extension beyond that period. (2) The fact that the first franchise was expressly limited to twentyfive years while the second was granted for "the existence of the corporation" was evidence confirming this construction.

(3) Respecting the contract concerning hydrants, the second company became successor of the first only for the unexpired term of that contract.

(4) That later ordinances of the city requesting pipe line extensions and declaring that the city thereby rented the hydrants along such extensions "for the unexpired term of the franchises of the said Water Company," and compliance by the second company with the requests so made upon it, did not import a recognition by the parties that the franchise of that company was for a definite, known term not to be enlarged by extension of its corporate existence, but were referable only to the hydrant contract and its unexpired term-a conclusion which was corroborated by the action of the parties in ceasing to collect and pay rent for such hydrants when that term expired. The question being whether a franchise granted by a city was limited to twenty-five years, the period for which the corporate grantee was primarily organized, or was meant to accompany an extension of the grantee's corporate life, the fact that the grantee, in former litigation. in which that question was neither material nor adjudicated, the primary period having then some years to run, described the franchise as a franchise for twenty-five years, affords no basis for an estoppel by conduct or by judgment; and the more clearly so where the grantee, in the same litigation, also described the franchise as granted for the whole period of its corporate existence.

While in the computation of time beginning "from and after" a day named it is usual to exclude that day and begin with the next, this is not done where it will obviously defeat the purpose of those whose words are being construed or applied.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. George W. Jolly and Mr. Ben D. Ringo, with whom Mr. John A. Dean, Jr., and Mr. La Vega Clements were on the briefs, for appellant.

Mr. William T. Ellis, with whom Mr. James J. Sweeney was on the brief, for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to enjoin the City of Owensboro, in the State of Kentucky, from obstructing and preventing the maintenance and operation of an existing water works plant in that city. The plaintiff relies upon a franchise from the city which the latter insists has expired. In the District Court the franchise was held to be still in force and the city was enjoined from giving effect to an ordinance and a resolution impairing the same.

By an ordinance of September 10, 1878, the city granted to the Owensboro Water Company, its successors and assigns, the privilege of constructing and operating water works within the city and of using its public highways for that purpose. In its first section the ordinance described this grant as made "for the duration of the said Company" and in another section expressly limited it to "twenty-five years from the passage of this ordinance." Other provisions required the water company to lay and maintain pipe lines in certain streets with a fire hydrant at each street intersection and obligated the city to rent and pay for the hydrants "for and during the term of twenty-five years