Court Opinion

ID: 8139678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 19:24:31.798398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:30.045024
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.