The Republican journal., 1902-02-13
SEWER CASE DECIDED.

Judge Emery, who presided at the Janu.
ary term of the Supreme Court in Waldo
| county has rendered his decision in the ca Sc
City of Belfast vs. Real Estate Co. The
action was brought to recover the amonnt
of sewer tax assessed on real estate of the
defendant company, located on Spring
street, and was heard at the January term,
1902. Joseph Williamson, ESQ.,, appeared
for the city, and N. F. Houston, agent, ap-
peared for the defendant company. The
case was referred to the presiding Justice.
The case of City of Belfast VS.. Ella F.
Hartman, defending upon the same facts.
was continued, to abide by this decision.
Following is the rescript:
The act of 1889, ch. 2S5, in relation to
public sewers, was accepted by the city of
Belfast and has been declared by the Court
to be constitutional and operative. Auburn
VS.. Paul 81 Me. 212
Under this act, when the city has COM
pleted public sewer, the municipal officers
are to determine what lots and parcels of
land in the city are benefited by the sewer.
and assess upon each of such lots or parcels
such sum as they deem just and equitable
towards defraying the cost of the sewer
The whole sum thus assessed must not ex
SNNNe
sum assessed upon each lot or parcel must
not exceed the benefit of the sewer to thai
lot or parcel.
The municipal officers are then to file with
the clerk the location and description of the
sewer, and a list of the lots or parcels of
lands assessed by them towards defravine
the cost with the amount assessed upon
each. Then the owner or occupant of the
lot or parcel assessed is to be notified of
time and place when and where he can ap-
pear and be heard before the municipal
officers upon the matter of such assess
ment. Upon such hearing the municipal
officers have power to revise, increase or
diminish the assessment. In case the owner
or occupant of the lot or parcel is not salts
fed with the result of such hearing, he may
within ten days appeal from the municipal
officers to board of arbitration which
board shall finally determine the matter
If the assessments as finally fixed are not
paid, the city may sue for the same and re-
cover the amount of the assessment with
twelve per cent. interest from the date of
the assessment.
ln this case the city did construct public
sewer or sewers. The municipal officers
proceeded to assess upon such lots as they
deemed benefited by the sewer such sums
upon each as they deemed just and equit-
able and not exceeding the benefit accrung,
and not exceeding in the aggregate one-half
of the whole cost of the sewer. They filed
Will lue clel lIlc lOchllOu anu description
of the sewer and also list of the lots and
parcels assessed and the amount of the
assessment upon each as provided by
statute. Notice of all this, and of the time
and place fixed for the hearing upon the
matter, was given the defendant according
to the statute. The defendant company,
though it thus had notice its land was thus
assessed and had notice of the time and
place for hearing, did not appear before the
nSillieipal officers. nor did 1t claim any
Il DIrom their decision.
The assessment thus made was not paid
within the statutory time and the city elect
ed to bring this suit therefor
The defendant contended and introduced
evidence tending to show: 1st, that its land
assessed tor this sewer had no need of the
sewer since it was sufficiently served by an
other sewer or by natural drainage I'd, that
other lots or parcels belonging to other own
erS were as much OF more benefited by the
sewer as its own lots, but were either asses
Sed not at all or at d much lower rate. The
plaintiff city introduced no evidence in re-
huttal, but contended that the questions
raised by the defendant are to be determin-
ed by the municipal officers in the first in
stance and by the board of arbitration if
an appeal be taken. The plaintiff also con-
tends that the defendant mot in any
event call upon the Court to pass upon these
questions until it has exhausted its rene
dies given by the statute, viz: An appeal
to the municipal officers themselves, and
then, II stlll dissatisfied, to the statutory
board OF arbitration; neither of which has
the defendant esSayed to do.
i think the plaintiffs contention must be
sustained in this case. | do not find from
the evidence that it is physically impossible
Tor the defendants assessed lots to be bene-
fitted by the sewer They can be connected
with the sewer, however unlikely it is that
they will be. The sewer thus becomes an
additional unnOrt;InfIr for bo 6r.,y, IF
them. This additional opportunity for
drainage may be a benefit to the lots
Whether it really is or not is a question left
by the statute to the municipal officers so
also is left to them the question of the
amount Of the benefit The defendants
remedy is by appeal to them, and then by
appeal to the appellate board of arbitra-
ton 1t is settled law in this State that
the fact that the property of others is assess
ed much lower. or not assessed at all, is no
defence to suit for taxes assessed by
tribunal having jurisdiction. The owner
of property taxed has other remedies by
way OF appeal to an appellate tribunal, or
by certiorari. If he does not make use of
any of these he must abide by the judg-
ment of the original tribunal. Rockland
VS.. Rockland Water Co. 2s Me. 1888. Emory
VS. Sanford 81 Me- 525.
1t may be that a sewer was not needed by
the defendants lots and is of no practical
benefit to them. 1t may be also that the
amount assessed upon the defendants lots
is really in excess of what this Court might
think just and equitable 1t may be that
the municipal officers have erred in both
respects, but do not find that the law gives
any right to appeal to this Court upon
either of those questions. Though the
Judgment of the municipal officers may be
erroneous it was upon a matter committed
by the legislature to them and not to the
Court. Effect must therefore be given to
their Judgment. The clerk is accordingly
instructed to enter
Judgment for the plaintiff for ninety dol
lars with interest at twelve per cert. per
annum from January 9th, A. d. 1900, the
date of the assessment