Court Opinion

ID: 9616261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:44:53.906583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:12.713555
License: Public Domain

BaeNhill, J.,
concurring: The ordinance relied on by defendant, when considered in connection with the contract between plaintiffs and ■defendant, is significant on the question of title to the water and sewer mains which are the subject matter of this controversy. Under the ordinance and the contract executed pursuant thereto, when the city limits were extended so as to incorporate plaintiffs’ development, the mains immediately became the property of defendant. Apparently this is •conceded.
The real controversy here is as to the right of plaintiffs to compensation for the property thus acquired by the city. On this question, in my -opinion, the ordinance is of no consequence. It has no bearing on the question either one way or the other, for a governmental unit may not, by legislative fiat, appropriate private property without paying just compensation therefor. Hildebrand v. Telegraph Co., 219 N.C. 402. It may •enact a law declaring that upon the happening of a certain event the title to property shall pass to and vest in such governmental unit. But this •does not relieve it of the obligation to pay just compensation for the property so taken.
The plaintiffs had the right to install water and sewer mains in the ■streets of their development, contract with the city for sewer outlets -through its system, purchase water wholesale from the municipality, and -then retail these services to the purchasers of their lots as a business ■undertaking independent of the land development. Had they pursued *716this course, the extension of the corporate limits of defendant city so as to incorporate the locus might have served to vest in defendant title to the water and sewer system thus maintained by the plaintiffs under the terms of the ordinance and the terms of the contract executed pursuant thereto — assuming, of course, that the contract for sewer outlets and for the purchase of water wholesale contained the same provisions as the one actually executed. However, such was not the course pursued. No doubt the plaintiffs deemed that method of furnishing those services to the purchasers of their lots too costly.
Instead, they installed the water and sewer mains, contracted with the 'city to furnish the contemplated services, and immediately surrendered possession of the mains to the defendant city. Since that time, and for more than twenty years, the city has operated the mains installed by plaintiffs as a part of its own system. In turn, plaintiffs have profited by the assurance that this valuable public service was available to all purchasers of lots in their development. No doubt they assessed the additional expense as a part of the original cost just as they did the expense of laying out the streets, clearing the property, and developing it for sale as building lots, and priced the lots accordingly. In any event, in my opinion, the surrender of possession to the city under the contract executed by them constituted a dedication to public use and they are now estopped by their conduct from claiming compensation therefor, irrespective of the terms of the ordinance. For this reason and this reason alone, I vote to uphold the verdict and judgment.