The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-28
BILLS FILED
 IN CHANCERY
COMPLAINANT ALLEGE ASSESS MENT AGAINST THE IS UN- CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRAY COURT TO DECLARE IT VOID.

Mary P McNeal of Marion, O., and Natalie Phelan and Sarah E. Phelan of Waterbury, Conn, have filed bill in the Chancery court praying that the action of the city in making assessments against their property be declared null and void, and to enjoin the city forever from col lecting or enforcing same, and to render a decree declaring the assessments uncon- stitutional.
 The bill was filed yesterday through the law firm of Weakley & Weakley, and is in regard to assessments on storm water sewers, the work having been or dered in 1900 and contract for it's per formance having been given to John McPoland.
 In the complaint it is alleged that on October 3, 1900, a resolution was adopted at meeting of the city council, in which a sewer district was laid out and pre- scribed, and that subsequently bids for the work were received and contract let to the lowest bidder, who proved to be John McPoland, his bid being s25,s96. 9S, and that on account of delays by con- tractor he deducted S969.S4 from the total cost chargable to the sewer, which amounted to $2S,927O9 Further allega- tions are that the city council made as- easements on all lands and lots in the dis trict to pay the cost of constructing the system, that a total assessment of s3, . 639.74 was made against the complainants, and that the city claims a lien on the property for the payment Complainants further claim that the assessments are illegal unconstitutional, null and void. They allege they each have an undivided one-third interest in the property against which the assessments were made, ana that in tho list of assessments the items appear as ''the Phelan heirs and "Phelan and McNeal heirs,a and that this is not a proper listing
 The complainants say they were not given notice of these assessments, but understand a notice was published in a Birmingham paper for those who did not think the assessments were right to ap- pear before meeting of the council on a certain day and make their claims. They claim this notice was inserted less than thirty days before the meeting and they had not seen it.
 The plaintiffs in the bill further allege and claim that their property was not benefited, as 1t already had a natural drainage. Assertions are made that the charter granted Birmingham gave the city power to construct water storm sew CTS and assess the cost for such improve ments against the property benefited thereby, provided however, that when the improvements consist of a storm sew CT the costs of the work shall be assessed against all lots parcels of land lying within the territory drained and bene- fitted by said sewer in proportion to tne amount of benefit accruing to each
 The compliments claim the authority which the city has by it's charter to make improvement is by the constitution of Alabama limited to the increased value of such property by reason of the special benefit derived from such Improvements. In this connection the plaintiffs claim their property has not been benefited. erty has not been beneftted
 The case is an interesting one. The assessments referred to relate to proper ties in blocks ?. 5, g. 3, Il. IS, P, 8, 2e, a, 32, 8 and S4.