Hyperlawhypertext legal database Silkman v. Board of Water Commissioners of Yonkers 24 N.Y.S. 806

← Cases

Silkman v. Board of Water Commissioners of Yonkers

24 N.Y.S. 806 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1893-07-28 English

Delivered by BARNARD, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 806
SILKMAN v. BOARD OF WATER COM’RS OF CITY OF YONKERS.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 28, 1893.)

Headnote

Water Rents—Taxes—Notice.
Laws 1873, c. 36, incorporating the board of water commissioners of Yonkers, directs the board to establish a scale of rents called “water rents,” and authorizes it to cut off the supply of water of any one not paying the rents. Held, that the rents are not a tax, entitling one to notice as of the levying of a tax on land.
Appeal from special term, Westchester county.
Action by Theodore H. Silkman to enjoin the board of water commissioners of the city of Yonkers from cutting off the supply of water furnished by defendant to plaintiff’s premises, for failure of plaintiff to pay a water rent, and to recover certain amounts paid by plaintiff. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
p. 807
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYK'MAN and PRATT, JJ.
Rudd & Hunt, (William P. Piero, of counsel,) for appellant.
Joseph F. Daly, for respondent.

The water rates are not taxes. The act under which the defendant was incorporated (chapter 36, Laws 1873) directs the commissioners to establish a scale of rents payable in advance or upon a stated term of credit, to be called “water rents.” The hoard was authorized to cut off the supply of water if these rents were not paid. There is no basis for terming these water rents a “tax.” Provident Inst, for Saving v. Jersey City, 113 U. S. 506 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612 ; Treadwell v. Van Schaick, 30 Barb. 444 . The commissioners did fix the rates, and it was supplied and paid for, but under a protest on account of his receiving no notice of the levying of a tax on the land. There is no lien on the land for water furnished and not paid for. There will be a tax on land for a deficiency to meet the purpose of the act, and, when this tax is laid, it will be upon notice. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cases cited