Court Opinion

ID: 6234597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:29:34.60548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:00.182781
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 17th 1873, by
Mercür, J.
We think the learned judge correctly held that although the Act of 14th April 1868 might be unconstitutional, so far as it sought to authorize a private corporation to levy and collect a tax upon a citizen, yet it does not follow that that power may not be conferred upon a municipal corporation. The manifest intent and meaning of the Act of 22d March 1870, are to give to the plaintiff all the rights, privileges, powers and franchises which previous acts had declared to be given to the Allentown Water Company, as fully as the language used therein professed to give the same, so that the plaintiff now holds and possesses them as fully as if they had been re-enacted in the same words.
We, however, are unable to concur in his conclusion that the said acts are unconstitutional. We do not understand this Act of 14th April to impose an assessment for a general public benefit. Upon the contrary, it is a local tax, substantially for a local benefit. The tax is local, as it is imposed upon those dwelling-houses *406only, situate upon the lines of the water-pipes. The benefits are local, as the use of the water must necessarily be mostly restricted to the benefit of the .property on those lines, both for domestic purposes and the extinguishment of fires. The effect of supplying those streets with water is to enhance the value of the dwelling-houses thereon. The maintenance of the pipes, and the supplying of water, are necessarily a continuing expense, and this tax is evidently designed to defray those expenses. It is well settled, that the legislature has the constitutional right to confer upon municipal corporations the power of assessing the cost of local improvements upon the properties benefited: Hammett v. Philadelphia, 15 P. F. Smith 146; Kirby v. Shaw, 7 Harris 258.
We concur that the verdict was correctly taken. The ordinance did not follow the Act of Assembly. The act authorized the assessment to be levied upon “ every dwelling-house situated in any of the streets, lanes and alleys of the said city, in, through and along which, and as far as, the water-pipes are now laid, and shall hereafter be laid.” The ordinance imposes the tax upon such dwelling-houses only as are “not supplied with hydrants.”
This is an unwarranted departure from the letter and spirit of the law.
Judgment affirmed.