Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-15
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRclMIAN-PlLo
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
SLAUGHTER v. o'BERRY.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
March 10, 1900.

N1dl OK 10 tooo'
A CITY CAN REQUIRE THAT A
CONNECTION WITH IT'S SEWERS
SHALL BE MADE BY IT'S LICENS-
ED OFFICER. AND THAT THE
MATERIAL USED BE SUBJECT TO
HIS INSPECTION. IT CANNOT
REQUIRE THE CITIZEN TO BUY
SUCH MATERIAL FROM 1T, OR
PAY THE WORK OF MAKING
SUCH CONNECTION.
The facts are shown in the opinion
/. Of the court.
The court says:
The plaintiff is n citizen and the own
er of n house and lot in the city of
Goldsboro, and Goldsboro is an ipcor-
porated city and the owner OF public
sewerage system. The defendant.
OBerry. Is the chairman of the sewer
age comanittee of said city. with power
to grant privileges of connection with
said city sewerage. upon specified
terms, mentioned in the ordinances of
SAID city. Among the specified require
ments OF the city ordinances are the
FOLLOWING: That no connection shall be
nlaoet put by some person elected and
licensed by the city to make such con-
nection; that said work shall then he
zone under the supervision and direc-
>.C'i VI tiic tlty Inspector, ana that the
CITY snail furnish the materials and do
the work of making such connection to
WITHIN three feet Of the building to be
80 connected with said sewerage; that
the application for such connection
shall be In writing, setting forth the
location of the building to be connected
ana the purposes for which the sewer
age, containing an estimate of the cost
OF SAID connections; and that the appi-
cant Shall deposit {. sufficient amount
OIL money with the city to defray the
expenses OF such connection. The plain
TIL has been elected and licensed to
make such connections and has made
MS application IN writing, and furnish
cd Il survey of the premises, with esti-
mates of cost of said connection but
ueciined TO make the deposit required
by the ordinance. and asked the priv
ilege of furnishing his own material
and cf doing his own work in making
the connection. under the direction and
supervision of the city inspector. This
application OF the plaintiff was refused
Tor the reason that he had not made
the deposit required by the ordinance
ana because he proposed to furnish his
own material and do his own work i'm
making the connection. These are the
substantial facts. as we understand
them, and present the question of con-
sideration and determinations
The city being the owner OF n public
sewerage. 1t has the right, and 1t is Its
duty. to protect the same from impro-
per uses and connections. But this
should be done in a reasonable manner
and so as not to affect private rights
further than Is necessary for that pur-
pose. Where 1t becomes necessary to
invade private property 1t must be
done With the consent OF the owner. or
under tie doctrine of eminent domain,
when the owner would be entitled to
COm1)puS1 tinn Npithar oit
the exercise Of its corporate powers, in
terfere with the rights OF the owner
over his property. nor with his personal
rights. where it is not necessary to do
so Tor the public benefit. From n con-
sideration Of these principles. it seems
10 us that the city had the right to say
what is proper connection with it's
sewerage: that 1t had n right to require
that this connection should be made by
Its authorized agent. and under the di-
rection and supervision of its city in
Spector; and that only suitable materi-
al should he used in making such con-
nectnon. But with these, il seems to
us, its rghtful powers ceased The
plans and specifications for this con-
nection had been made and approved
me connection was proper one to be
made or the plans and specifications
nied by the plaintiff would
not have been approved. The
approved. The plaintiff was a licensed
ofticer or the city to do such work I'M
der the direction and supervision of the
city inspector. SO the question comes
down to this Should the plaintiff be
ahowsd to furnish his own material.
subject to the inspection and approval
or the city Inspector. and to do his own
work oi his own premises, or shall he
be compelled to hire the CITY to fur
nish this material and to do his work ?
We see no reason why he should be re-
uuired to do so. We can see no benefit
the city is to derive from such Il re-
quirement, unless 1t he a profit on the
material or the work to be done or to
furnish a, job for some favorite of the
corporate authorities. We do not sov
that, if it is not, then we see no reason
for such requirement. And. if it is not
required for the public good, 1t is an
unnecessary invasion of the personal
and property rights of the plaintiff.
ultra wires, and unlawful We are
therefore Of the opinion that the CITY
had the right to require that this con-
nection should be made by it's licensed
officer that materials furnished should
be proper for such work, and subject TO
the inspection and approval of the city
inspector. and that the work of putting
them in should be done under the sup
ervision of the city Inspector. But we
are also of the opinion that the city
had no right to compel the plaintiff to
buy the material from It. nor had il the
right to compel the plaintiff to pay it to
do the work we have specified and
pointed out above in this opinion. The
plaintiff was entitled to the mandamus
and the Judgment OF the court below is
affirmed.
KNOX V. RICHARDS.
Supreme Court OF Georgia.
Eehruary 81 1000