Court Opinion

ID: 8343108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 23:40:38.23694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:45:43.571227
License: Public Domain

By the Court:
The rule adopted by the board of administration is not inconsistent with the judgment that the assessments for the construction of the sewer in question were void. The assessments were asserted against the owners of all abuttingproperty, whether vacant or improved. They were asserted without regard to the use of the sewer. The rule in question prescribes conditions upon which connections may be made for the actual use of the sewer.
The board is authorized by section 2402, Revised Statutes, to prescribe rules and regulations for the tapping of sewers. Certainly, it may not prescribe an unreasonable rule. In determining whether this rule is reasonable it is important that the system of sewers of which this is a part was constructed by the city with a view to assessing the cost thereof, within the limit of two dollars per foot, upon the abutting property, which, it is admitted, the statute authorized. The rule in question was adopted and properly conditioned to require that those who had not paid assessments should, when desiring to use the sewer, accept an equal burden with those who had. We cannot say that the rule is unreasonable. Its application to this case is obvious.

Judgment reversed.