Court Opinion

ID: 9626046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:00:12.153507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:14.175970
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result, but not for some •of the reasons stated in the main opinion, the implications of which may come back to haunt this court. This whole project was contractual and not taxual, and there seems to me to be no necessity to discuss the Constitution, any attorney general’s •opinions, higher standards of sanitation since the McGonagle decision, or much of .anything else. Under the set-up here, the schools have a choice to contract for the service, for pay, or provide for their own sewage disposal under some other plan. It is obvious that in this case, if the school is more than 200 feet from the connection, it could not force anyone to furnish this service free of charge. I subscribed to the language of the main opinion, that “the service charge and connection charge, neither of which is challenged as unreasonable, are not taxes or assessments but payments for service which the board of education has enjoyed.”