Evening star., 1900-11-13
WATER MAIN ASSESSMENTS
QUESTION OF CANCELLATION PASSED
UPON BY ATTORNEY DUVALL.
Lots Owned by Behanna Hodges, but
Assessed In Other Names
Law in Case.

In the matter OF the water main tax
against sublots 26 q and %, block IL,
Trinidad. plat 20, owned by Behanna
Hodges and assessed October 1, 1898, in
the names of Edward Thurman. Edward j.
Hopkins and Julia Wahl, respectively, the
attorney for the District, Mr.. A. B. Du-
vail, has advised the Commissioners that
these assessments should not be Cancelled.
1t appears, says Mr.. Duvall, that the
water main tax on these lots was Cancelled
under the "Isurgdorf decision;" that Octo-
ber 1, 1898, the said tax was reassessed
under the provisions of the act Of Con-
gress of July 8, 1898, authorizing the re-
assessment of water main taxes; that the
said assessment was not made in the name
of the owner. but in the names OF the
aforementioned persons, and that the no.
tice Of reassessment against sublots 70 and
q was served on SAID Behanna Hodges,
but that no notice of reassessment against
sublot % was served on her The question
Is as to the suiiiciency, says the attorney,
of the reassessment against all or SAID
lots, and 10 the SutfiClency of the notice
to subiot 2S
THE act of Congress TO regulate water
main assessments says Mr.. Duvall ''ap-
proved August IL. 1894, provides that here
after assessments for laying water mains
in the District of Columbia shall be at the
rate of 81. p per linear foot against all lots
or land abuttlng on the street. road or al
ley in which water main shall be laid.
The Supreme Court of the United States
held in Parsons against District of Colum-
bia 90 u. s., 45), that notice to the prop
erty owner was not necessary to sustain the
validity of a water main tax levied under
said act Of Congress.
Act of Assembly.
1.-The act of the late legislative assembly
approved June q, 1873 authorizing an as
sessment for water MAINS provides (sec-
ton u. that the water registrar shall i'm
mediately notify the owner agent OF the
property chargeable with such assessment
setting forth in said notice the number Of
the square in which Is situated the proper
ty on which said tax is assessed and the
street, avenue or alley on which 1t fronts;
and the said tax shall be due and payable
in four equal installments, etc, and all Of
said installmentS shall bear interest at the
rate Of per centum per annum, commence
ing from the date of the notification of the
assessment
THE assessment would. therefore, ap-
pear to be a good assessment, inasmuch as
it was levied against the abuttinR land
The service of the notice of assessment Is
required by law to be the owner of
such land From the time the owner Is
thus notified, interest is chargeable upon the
assessment. 1t has been held that where
an ordinance requires that after the assess
ment of the tax has been made notice
snail De given TO the owner, and interest
upon the tax shall be charged from the
date Of the notice until paid. The failure
to give notice does not affect the validity
Of the assessment. 1t only prevents the
charging of interest upon the tax. (Walker
against the District of Columbia, 9 Mac
1922
Il am Of opinion that these assessments
should not be cancelled that there was a
good service of notice as to sublots 25 and
p. but not as to sublot %, and that notice
or the assessment against said last men
toned lot should be Immediately served on
Behanna Hodges, the owner thereof,