Court Opinion

ID: 9846492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:42:20.986161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:35.296965
License: Public Domain

Lewis, C. J.
(dissenting) : The majority opinion seeks to determine the validity of the contractual provision in question without the presence of the prior owners of the sewer system as parties to the litigation. The provision struck down by the majority was apparently a material consideration for the transfer of the sewer system to appellants and its validity or effect should not be determined without the Court having before it the parties to the contract.
If the contractual provision in question is void and the former owners would not have entered into the transfer without the inclusion of that provision, question may arise as to the validity of the entire transaction and therefore the authority of appellants to operate under it.
I would reverse the judgment under appeal on the ground that the necessary parties to a determination of the issue are not before the Court, and remand the case for the purpose of bringing in the necessary parties if the present litigants so desire.
I, therefore, dissent.