Court Opinion

ID: 9790018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:13.635582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.725536
License: Public Domain

Mallery, J.
(dissenting) — I do not agree with the inter*16pretation which the majority put upon the language of the following clause in the agreement:
"... and that it will furnish, without cost or charge to the Authority and the tenants of each Project, the usual municipal services and facilities which are or may he furnished free to other dwellings and inhabitants in the City, . . . ” (Italics mine.)
I think the italicized words are mere surplusage and add nothing to the meaning of the clause, which was intended to shield the project against discrimination, but not to grant it any preference. However inept the language in question is, it was obviously intended to place the project and the other inhabitants of the city upon a parity as to free municipal services, both as to the present and in the future.
In other words, services which are presently free to the other inhabitants must be presently free to the project. Any services which may he free to the other inhabitants in the future must also be free in the future to the project.
I dissent.
Donworth and Rosellini, JJ., concur with Mallery, J.
June 17,1960. Petition for rehearing denied.