upr000318 93

Water bills, Riverside - 1*. A. Banks packing house Practice of City to make charges against owner of premises. Wovember 2 1 , 1 9 2 7 . Mr. Knickerbocker: Returning herewith attachments sent to this department with your letter of November 18th, upon the above subject: In our judgment the position taken by the City of Riverside is not legally sound. Our conclusion is sustained by the case of Hourse vs. City of toe Angeles, 2 5 Cal. App. holding that in supplying water a municipal corpora­tion does not act in its sovereign capacity but in the capacity of a private corporation engaged in like business; that the city has a duty to furnish water without discrimination to all of its inhabitants upon their compliance with reasonable rules and regulations; that a rule identical with this here involved is unreasonable and discriminatory as against an occupant of property whose predecessors are in default but who has himself oomplled with all reason­able regulations, there being no statute or charter provision conferring authority upon the city to adopt such regulation; and that a writ of mandamus may be availed of to compel the City to supply the water. There seems to be no provision in the Riverside City charter bearing upon the point. In the case of Linne vs. Bredes (Washington), 86 Pacific 8 58 , it was held that an ordinance authorizing such a practice was not sufficient. The authority must be statutory. It may be that when the Nourse case is called to the attention of the City it will change its attitude. There may be some practical reasons why it would be better to pay the bill and obtain reimbursement from the former tenant, if possible, rather than to find ourselves in a controversy with the City, but that is a matter solely for you to determine, legally there is, in my opinion, no justification whatever for the City’s position. FEP:MTD Fred 1. Pettit, jr.