Court Opinion

ID: 9832444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:55:07.330472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.858127
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.-
* On motion for rehearing appellees complain of the following findings of this court: Eirst, appellant testified that at the time he gave Mrs. Avery permission to connect with the sewer constructed by him it was understood that Mrs. Avery would not let any one else connect with her part of the sewer, and that there was no dispute of his testimony; second, that the extension of the sewer of appellee across Walker avenue was made about a month or six weeks after it had been laid in his lot 1, block 25; third, that it was not shown whether the permission obtained by appellant’s plumber to lay the sewer across Walker avenue was verbal or in writing.
We confess error in the particulars pointed out, and at appellees’ request we correct such findings as follows:
Mrs. Bundy, a daughter of Mrs. Avery, ,a witness for appellee, testified that it was not understood at-the time appellant gave Mrs. Avery permission to connect with his sewer that she was not to let any one else connect with her part of the sewer.
It was also shown that when the sewer of appellant was constructed into his lot 1, block 25, it was completed across Walker avenue practically at the same time and not a month or six weeks later, as found by us.
While appellant testified that he did not know whether the permission obtained by his plumber to lay his sewer across Wálker *520avenue was verbal or written, Ms plumber testified that such permission was verbal only.
Upon request of appellee so to do, we make the following additional findings:
First. By permission of appellants the several parties owning premises situated on lots 2, 4 and 12 in block 25 made connection with his séwer and paid appellant a monetary consideration for making such connection.
Second. Appellee Howell, before constructing and connecting his sewer with the sewer system of appellant, deposited with the city engineer the sum of $31.25, that being the amount prescribed by the city council for connections when made with sewers known and defined by the ordinances as “lateral sewers.”
Third. It was shown that up to the time of trial the 6-inch sewer laid by. appellant had not been overtaxed and clogged by excessive use.
Having made the corrections in our findings as requested, and still being of opinion that we correctly disposed of the cause, we overrule appellees’ motion for rehearing, with this additional comment:
It seems clear to us that the sewer laid by appellant was not a “lateral sewer” as that term is used in the ordinances referred to in our opinion, but that it is only a service sewer or service connection, which is by the provisions of said ordinances to be not less than 6 inches in diameter, while the lateral' sewer is to be not less than 8 inches in diameter.
It seems clear to us that, since the ordinances inhibit the extension of any service line to run through one block and across an intersecting street, and since that by said ordinances it is required that such lines shall be confined to the limits of the one block, the permission granted by the city engineer to appellant to lay his service sewer, which he had constructed to serve premises on block 25, on and across Walker avenue was contrary to law and void. It is, we think, evident that the city council intended by said ordinances to prevent the overtaxing .and clogging of such service sewers, ■ and to do so provided that connections made therewith should be confined to the one block.