Court Opinion

ID: 4477255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-16 21:12:26.459645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:54.889261
License: Public Domain

Raum, J., concurring: The expenditure herein was plainly capital in nature, and, as the majority opinion points out, if provision had been made in the original plans for the construction of a drainage system there could hardly be any question that its cost would have been treated as a capital outlay. The character of the expenditure is not changed merely because it is made at a subsequent time, and I think it wholly irrelevant whether the necessity for the drainage system could have been foreseen, or whether the payment therefor was made as a result of the pressure of a law suit. Fisher, J., agrees with this concurring opinion.