City of Bucyrus v. Sears

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Bucyrus v. Sears

171 N.E. 256, 34 Ohio App. 450, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 305, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 537

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 1930

DocketNo 1238

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 N.E. 256 (City of Bucyrus v. Sears) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Bucyrus v. Sears, 171 N.E. 256, 34 Ohio App. 450, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 305, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 537 (Ohio Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

HUGHES, J.

- From our examination of the cases digested, we find a line of authorities without conflict, upholding the right of municipalities to make water charges and light charges for service furnished- by city plants, a lien against the property supplied.

In the case of City of East Grand Fork v. Luck, a Minnesota case reported in 107 N. W. at 392, and cited in the brief for the city, a review of many of the cases is had, and the various objections to such procedure by a municipality are ably answered, both by the argument of the learned judge who rendered the opinion, and by the cases cited by him.

It is said therein, that the property owner has no absolute right to call upon a city for water without regard to suitable terms controlling its use, and the city has the undoubted right to prescribe what those terms shall be, subject only to the rule that they must be reasonable and not prohibitory.

In the case at bar, the city had provided by its rules and regulations, that any property furnished with water would be chargeable therewith and that a lien' would be held against it for the charges. A property owner who pipes his property and connects with the city water works, assents and agrees to these terms.

Judge McKenna, in rendering the opinion in the case ■ of Dunbar v. City of New *306 York, 251 U. S. 516, makes the same comment; that is, in substance he says that that the consent of the owner was implied from the fact that the law and the rules and regulations imposing the water rents, preceded the service, which the owner permitted his property to receive, and likewise the water charge in controversy was imposed and made a lien on plaintiff’s property by these rules, and the consent of plaintiff in implied. No other conclusion can be possible.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings according to law. Exceptions saved.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HUGHES, J.

- From our examination of the cases digested, we find a line of authorities without conflict, upholding the right of municipalities to make water charges and light charges for service furnished- by city plants, a lien against the property supplied.

In the case of City of East Grand Fork v. Luck, a Minnesota case reported in 107 N. W. at 392, and cited in the brief for the city, a review of many of the cases is had, and the various objections to such procedure by a municipality are ably answered, both by the argument of the learned judge who rendered the opinion, and by the cases cited by him.

It is said therein, that the property owner has no absolute right to call upon a city for water without regard to suitable terms controlling its use, and the city has the undoubted right to prescribe what those terms shall be, subject only to the rule that they must be reasonable and not prohibitory.

In the case at bar, the city had provided by its rules and regulations, that any property furnished with water would be chargeable therewith and that a lien' would be held against it for the charges. A property owner who pipes his property and connects with the city water works, assents and agrees to these terms.

Judge McKenna, in rendering the opinion in the case ■ of Dunbar v. City of New *306 York, 251 U. S. 516, makes the same comment; that is, in substance he says that that the consent of the owner was implied from the fact that the law and the rules and regulations imposing the water rents, preceded the service, which the owner permitted his property to receive, and likewise the water charge in controversy was imposed and made a lien on plaintiff’s property by these rules, and the consent of plaintiff in implied. No other conclusion can be possible.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings according to law. Exceptions saved.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice & Crow.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 N.E. 256, 34 Ohio App. 450, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 305, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-bucyrus-v-sears-ohioctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack