Cartersville Waterworks Co. v. City of Cartersville

• Decision Date: 01 August 1892
• Citation: 16 S.E. 70,89 Ga. 689
• Parties: CARTERSVILLE WATERWORKS CO. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF CARTERSVILLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

16 S.E. 70

89 Ga. 689

CARTERSVILLE WATERWORKS CO. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF CARTERSVILLE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 1, 1892

Syllabus by the Court.

1. As to the invalidity of the contract for a water supply running through a period of 30 years, this case is controlled by the ruling in Water Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Cartersville, 16 S.E. 25, (just decided.)

2. Under the facts in the record, there was no estoppel upon the municipal government in consequence of any prior adjudication.

3. There was no power to exempt the property of the water company from municipal taxation by contract, and the attempt to grant such exemption was not effectual. The company could neither take the exemption by way of gratuity, nor purchase it by way of commutation.

4. A creditor of a municipal corporation is not entitled to an injunction against the collection of his municipal taxes on the ground that the municipality is indebted to him, and has in its treasury a fund which could not legally be applied otherwise than by paying this debt, and which it refuses to pay until after the creditor discharges the claim against him for taxes. There was no error in denying the injunction.

Error from superior court, Bartow county; J. W. MADDOX, Judge.

Petition by the Cartersville Waterworks Company to enjoin the mayor and aldermen of the city of Cartersville from collecting certain taxes. The petition was denied, and petitioner prosecutes a writ of error. Affirmed.

A creditor of a municipal corporation is not entitled to an injunction against the collection of his municipal taxes on the ground that the municipality is indebted to him, and has in its treasury a fund which could not legally be applied otherwise than by paying this debt, and which it refuses to pay until after the creditor discharges the claim against him for taxes.

The following is the substance of the official report:

August 6, 1888, the mayor, etc., made a contract with a certain water company, whose rights were afterwards assigned to the plaintiff, by which, in consideration of $2,500 per annum payable January 1st and July 1st, the water company undertook to erect a system of waterworks and to supply with water, for fire purposes and the necessary demand for the fire department, 50 hydrants; "also to supply with water, for the payment of city license and taxes for the first ten years of this contract, two drinking fountains with quarter-inch openings, of continual flow, for man and beast, at such places on the mains as designated by the council." The term of this contract is for 30 years. It is therein recited that, should the legislature authorize the city to levy a tax known as the waterworks tax, it shall be a special tax devoted alone to the purposes of the contract. In 1891 the municipal authorities assessed for taxation the property of the waterworks company, and issued an execution for $340 with costs, which was levied November 3, 1891, on the plaintiff's water tower and lot. The petition for injunction alleges that the undertakings on the part of the water company were complied with; that on or before the 25th of October, 1889, it delivered the drinking fountains, fully completed, equipped, and in constant flow, to the mayor etc., who, by resolution of that date, accepted the waterworks, hydrants, and fountains as fully completed and delivered according to the terms of the contract; that by the terms of the contract it was the intention of the parties that these fountains so supplied were to be accepted in payment of taxes which would otherwise be payable in money alone; that by the erection and maintenance of these fountains the plaintiff has paid all taxes which would otherwise be due the city; and that, as between the city and the plaintiff, the plaintiff's contention on this point is res adjudicata, for that on the 29th of October, 1889, F. M. Ford et al., freeholders and taxpayers of that city, filed their petition in the superior court against the mayor, etc., and the present plaintiff, complaining of the contract because it is stipulated therein that the water company shall be relieved from city taxes for the first 10 years for the furnishing by it of two drinking fountains as therein set forth, and praying that the contract be decreed void in all its parts; and the present plaintiff, answering that petition, denied that it was exempted from taxation, and insisted that under the contract it had paid its taxes for 1889, and would continue to pay them for each successive year, by the erection and maintenance of the drinking...