Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-11-26
IMPORTANT DECISION.
All City Water Rents Can be
Collected nv Distraint.

From time almost immemorial there
has been a prevailing belief, among city
taxpayers that water rents due the city,
being not taxes, could not be collected
by distraining property; that shutting
off the water was the limit OF the coll
lector's resources in enforcing pay
ment and that done, his power was at
an end.
A recent decision made by Judge G.
p. 7. Moore, of the Supreme Court,
alters this aspect of affairs and clearly
sets forth, that all water rents imposed
by Council, may be collected by dis
traint, or, in other words, that the col
lector may levy upon and sell property
for the payment of his claim. 49,
In rendering the opinion land 1t will
be read with interest by every water
consumer in the city, Judge Moore
quotes section 8 OF chapter 366 OF the
acts OF 1852 as follows:
"If any person assessed with water
rent for the use of the water works of
said city, shall fail, neglect or refuse to
pay the same to the officer appointed to
collect and receive the same, within
thirty DAYS after the same shall have be.
come due and payable, the said officer
shall have the same power and author
itv to collect the said water rents as are
conferred upon sheriffs for the collec-
ton OF the State and county taxes, &c. u"
Proceeding with his opinion, he says a
water rent lis simply a charge for the
use OF water furnished persons by the
city. and is therefore not an ordinary
tax, the consideration for the charge be-
ing the water supplied by the city to
the persons using it and for the collec.
ton Of which the said statute quoted
above) gives the additional summary
remedy where the amount OF the charge
has been assessed by the city
council When, however, through
the fraud, mistake or omission by the
assessor who makes the separate list OF
all manufacturers and others using and
receiving the water, &c, no assessment
is made by the Council of the water rent
or charge, there can be no diStrdint; but
the party receiving and using the water,
who has been thus omitted, is justly
liable to pay to the city what the use OF
the water received and used by him is
reasonably worth, and the city could
maintain its action therefor.
at would be strange indeed II the
CITY should be barred from the right to
receive from those who received and
used the water thus furnished by the
city, by the fraud, mistake or omission
of the subordinate officers OF the city. II
the charge for the use of the water thus
furnished was simply tax, it must be
otherwise, but as The charge isJor rdhte r.
ceired, its right TO receive must be as we
have stated
1t will be noticed that in the above
opinion, Judge Moore specifies that all
water rents charged by Council are sub
ject to collection by distraint, and that
for Others, known as Supplemental as
sessments," the collector may proceed at
law. But as, under the new rule, all sup
Elemental water assessments are report
ed toand confirmed by Council, all water
assessments, whether regular or supple
mental, are made collectible by dis
traint.
Taxpayers will do well to remember
this when called on to pay water rents.