The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-12
CITY LOSES CASE INsS SUPPLE
 SUIT FOR WATER RENTS

the period during which the entire ex- cess in arrear had been accommodating. The plaintiff offered to show that the, estimate was probably liberal. but there was nothing tending to show that the flow and use of water had been uni- form. E
 'sThe Superintendent denies that any tender was made. The city refused to turn on the water until plaintifs should pay the entire amount of ar rearage for the premises Thereupon, water being necessity to the plaint- iffs, they paid the amount demanded, under protest. and now sue to recover 1t. There are ordinances Of the city which require that applications for use of water must be made at the once of the water department of the city; that regular water rates must be paid in advance. and that water may pc shut off if any bills remain unpaid TOT | twenty days after they become que. The reasonab,eness of these ordinances is not questioned in .his case. Meters are read once month.
 There is nothing in the charter or the city of Montgomery or auctiliary statutes which makes bills for water supplied by the city lien upon the premises to which 1t Is supplied. Therefore the question If the uaoiilty of an owner or tenant for the unpalo'
 water bill of his prede ,essor Tn estate is to be determined according to the general law of contract ana pelng go determined it must be held that plaint- ifs were not liable for Trimbte's arr rearage. Turner vs. Revere Water CO, 40 L. R. A. (Mass.) G5d: Burke vs.
 Water Valley, 40 So. Rep, CMiss.l ), s2o.
 Tt follows that the city was standing out for too much, and that the piaint- ifs are entitled to recover. Ihe oniy difficulty about the case ar'ses m oe- termfning the exact amount Tor Whicn
 judgment must be rendered. Plaintins were at fault In beginning to use the water without application to the water department of the city. The city can not be held to a knowledge or what IS shown by all meters at all times; nor what was shown by the meter on plaintiffs premises when olaintin went into possession, no occasion for this last being brought 10 its notice. Un- der the circumstances 1t seems reason- able to hold that the city would have been justified in holding out for the amount due at the time plaintiffs did apply for water used since the meter was taken last before that and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the rest. TLis might have been shov with ex- actness but was not. However. under such evidence as I have, think 1t may be said with reasonable certainty that plaintiffs are entitled to recover as much as ,s60, with interest. Judgment accordingly"
 Decrees in several other non-Jury cases were also rendered by Judge Sayre.
 Tn the case of Henry W. Clark against the City Council. judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plafnt- if sought to recover small amount alleged to have been excess water taxes on negro property.
 Judgment for the defendant was rendered in each of the cases of W. w. Haygood against Mrs. Clara M. Par r'sh. and of W. A. Jackson against Mrs. Clara M. Parrish. Haygood sued
 for $3,000 for an alleged breach of contract in n real estate transaction. and W. A. Jackson sued for $500 real estate commission in the same trans | action.
 Other decrees were rendered as fol- | lows:
 Red Bridge Mercantile Comrany vs :. A. G. Rhodes & Son Company. Judg- | ment for defendant.
 l c. A. Goodwin & Co. vs. John M.
 Burch. judgment for plaintiff for $62. Virden & Go. vs. R. c. Hocken Smith, Judgment for plaintiff for $335.
 The speediest route to independence l -Daybreak Fertilizers.