Court Opinion

ID: 9532522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:22:01.322506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:46.407384
License: Public Domain

Hall, J.,
dissenting. I believe appellants come within the , terms of the provisions of G. S. 1949, 19-2738 (1), which provides as follows:
“That if before or after the creation of a lateral sewer district, or joint *83sewer district, lateral sewers or joint district sewers were built to serve only a part of and not all of the land included in any such sewer districts and such sewers were paid for by the owners of the land served, then, when other such sewers are built after the creation of such district, the cost thereof shall be charged on an area basis against the property served and none other.”
Appellants properly alleged the application of this statute in their petition. The court dealt with it only by implication. Defendants answered the allegation as follows:
“Answering further, defendant states that Sec. 19-2738 (1) of the General Statutes of Kansas, 1949, does not apply in this matter in as much as plaintiff’s property is receiving benefits of lateral sewer.”
And in this appeal, defendants simply state:
“The appellant quotes Sec. 19-2738 of the General Statutes of 1949 in part, ... In this case, Wood has built no sewers as such. All he has done is connect directly to the main sewer that' was built on the easement granted, except for one house, which is connected to Lateral Sewer 22-B.”
While there are no court decisions on the interpretation of this section, its language is very clear and appears to apply to appellant’s case. His right under the statute does not rest on any easement or reservation but upon compensation for having built and paid for his own lateral sewers; nor is his right defeated under the statute because benefits are received from the lateral sewer as alleged in defendants answer.
Defendants raise the point on appeal “Wood has built no sewers as such.” A question must be raised as to whether the sewers built by appellant from the houses on the three acre tract to the main were “lateral sewers” under the terms of the statute (G. S. 1949, 19-2731). Our statute defines a lateral sewer district, but not a lateral sewer. The law dictionaries do not define it. Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines the word lateral “to include a sewer system ... as distinguished from a main.” Under this definition, the sewers built by appellant and connected into the main would bring it within the scope of the statute.