
    [Philadelphia,
    January 27, 1827.]
    The Commissioners of SPRING GARDEN against SMITH.
    IN ERROR.
    The words of the proviso of the act of the 9 th of March’, 1826, exempt the owners of a lot at the corner of Vine and Wood Streets, extending more than fifty feet in depth along Wood Street, from assessment, for defraying the expense of pipes, for fifty feet of that depth.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Philadelphia, where judgment was rendered in favour of tjie defendant on the following case stated for the opinion of the court:
    By the act of assembly, passed the 9th of March, 1826, entitled, “a further supplement to an act, entitled, ‘an act to incorporate the District of Spring Garden,’ it is provided, that the board of commissioners of the said district, or a majority of them, shall have full power and authority, upon the application in writing of the owner, or a majority of them,,of real estate in any square or two squares of any street, lane, road, or alley, where the pipes may have been then laid, to introduce into such square or two squares, of any such street, lane, road,: or alley, the Schuylkill or other wholesome water, for wh.ich the said commissioners have, or such square or two squares of such street, lane, road, or alley, and such other estate as make use of the same, shall and may be taxed by the said commissioners for all the expenses that may be incurred in laying the said pipes, introducing the said water into such square and two squares, and keeping up therein the necessary supply of water in proportion to the said respective pipes of the said real estate, and calculating the size of the said pipes at six inches, and shall be liable and chargéable with the same, &c.; provided, that all corner lots extending more than fifty feet in depth from any street, lane, road, or alley, in which pipes shall be laid, and the water introduced, shall pay for such excess in depth, -at the same rate whenever pipes are laid, and the water introduced into the same.” On the 25th of April, 1826, the city of Philadelphia contracted to supply the District of Spring Garden with Schuylkill water. The lots and houses on the north, side of Vine Street are within the said district, and had been supplied with water from the city mains laid in Vine Street, and within the city, previous to the date of the said contracts. On the application of a majority of the owners of property within the square, the said board of commissioners have caused pipes to be laid in John Street, from Vine to FFood Street. Newberry Smith, the defendant, is proprietor of a lot at the corner of Vine and John Streets, within the said incorporated district, on which is erected a dwellinging house, the front door of which is in Vine Street, but there is no door on John Street. The lot is twenty-one feet front on Vine Street, and extends on John Street ninety feet two inches. The question for the opinion of the court is, how many feet are to be assessed and paid for by the said Newberry Smith, for the expense of the pipes laid in John Street.
    
      Chew and Mahany, for the commissioners.
    
      Rawle, contra.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

This cause was decided in the Court of Common Pleas on a case stated in which all the necessary facts appear. The defendant is the owner of a house and lot at the corner of Vine and John Street, containing twenty-one feet in front on Vine Street, and extending northward ninety feet on John Street, preserving the same breadth of twenty-one feet throughout. The commissioners, by virtue of the power vested in them by the act of the 9th of March, 1826, and of their contract with the city of Philadelphia, dated the 25th of April, 1826, laid pipes for conveying the water from the main which had been laid by the city, in Vine Street, up John Street, as far north as Wood Street. And in the assessment, in pursuance of the act of assembly for defraying the expenses of these pipes, &e. the defendant was rated for his whole part of ninety feet on John Street. This would have been all right, if it had not been a corner lot. But the following proviso in this act distinguishes between corner and other lots:— “Provided, that all corner lots, extending more than fifty feet in depth, from any. street, lane, road, or alley, in which pipes shall be laid, and the waters introduced, shall pay for such excess in depth at the same rate per foot as other property in the same street, lane, road, or alley, whenever pipes are laid and the waters introduced into the same.” Now this was a corner lot, extending more than fifty feet from' its front on Vine Street; and, as appears by the statement of the case, the owners of lots fronting on Vine Street, had the use of the water flowing in the main laid by the city in Vine Street before the pipes were laid by the commissioners of Spring Garden, ?t> John Street. The case, therefore, falls within the words of the proviso. The legislature does not assign its reason for distinguishing between corner lots and others. But it is presumed it was supposed that the owners of the corner lots had been at expense in procuring the water in front, which would make it unreasonable that they should be assessed for laying other pipes at right angle the whole depth of their lots. Fifty feet, therefore, were allowed them free from assessment, beyond which the property was to be assessed. The commissioners contend, that as the main in Vine Street was not laid at the expense of the District of Spring Garden, the case is not embraced by the proviso. But this construction is not to be justified. When the act of March 9th, 1826, was passed, it was well enough known that the main in Vine Street had been laid by the city, and that the owners of lots on the north side of Vine Street, and of the city and within the District of Spring Garden, were to have the use of it, and that the city would take care to secure an adequate compensation for that use. It is not prudent, however, to form a construction on conjecture, against the words of a law. It appears to the court, that the words of this proviso are sufficiently plain, and that they exempt the property of the defendant from assessment, to the extent of fifty feet from Vine Street. It is our opinion, therefore, that the judgment of the Court of Common Fleas should be affirmed.

'Judgment affirmed.  