Hyperlawhypertext legal database Silkman v. Board of Water Commissioners 78 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 37

← Cases

Silkman v. Board of Water Commissioners

78 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 37 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Judges Pratt, J., concurred.

Delivered by Barnard, P. J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 37
Theodore H. Silkman, Appellant, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Yonkers, Respondent.

Headnote

Water rents — not a tax.
A water rent, established and collected by a board of water commissioners, directed by the act under which it was incorporated, to establish a scale of rents called water rents, payable in advance or upon a stated term of credit, and authorized to cut off the supply of water if such rents are not paid, is not a tax. *
Appeal by tbe plaintiff, Theodore H. Silkman, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, adjudging the plaintiff not entitled to the injunction issued in this action on September 27, 1890, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 8th day of May, 1893, upon a decision of the court rendered at the Westchester County Special Term.
The board of water commissioners of the city of Yonkers furnished water to Theodore H. Silkman and presented certain quarterly bills to him for the amount apportioned as a burden against the premises owned by him. With each bill presented to Silkman, he received notice that if such bill was not paid within thirty days, his supply of water would be cut off. Prior to September, 1890, he paid all the bills so presented to him, but under protest.
On September 1, 1890, a bill was presented by the board of water commissioners to Silkman for' four dollars and sixty cents for water furnished to liis premises, and payment thereof was demanded, the board threatening that unless such bill was paid before October 1, 1890, the water supply would be cut off from plaintiff’s house.
Thereupon plaintiff brought this action' to recover the amounts theretofore paid by him under protest to such board of water com-misssioners, and to restrain such board from cutting off his supply of water, and obtained a temporary injunction, restraining the board from cutting off or interfering with Silkman’s supply of water.
Upon the trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, adjudging that the plaintiff was not entitled to the pending injunction.
p. 38
William P. Piero, for the appellant.
Joseph F. Daly, for the respondent.

The water rates are not taxes. The act under which the defendant was incorporated, chapter 30, Laws of 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 board 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., etc., v. The Mayor, 113 U. S. 506 ; 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.

Pratt, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited