The plaintiff, having paved certain streets in the city of Oshkosh under written contracts with the-
The city had adopted subch. XX of ch. 40a, Stats. (1898), relating to the construction of sewers, and the question is whether the word “may,” as used in section 925 — 223 of that chapter, is permissive or mandatory. The section provides in effect that whenever the city council shall order the paving or repaving of a street in which gas or water mains, or sewers, or either of them, have previously been laid, “they may also by resolution” require service pipes and house drains to be first laid to the curb line at the expense of the abutting property, at such intervals as they shall direct. The section then provides for the giving of notice to property owners to lay such service pipes or connections, and for the laying of the same by the board of public works in case of default, and concludes with the proviso “that no street shall be paved or repaved by order of the council unless the water and gas mains and service pipes and necessary sewers and their connections shall, as required by the council, be first laid and constructed in that portion of such street so to be paved or repaved.”
The ordinary and natural meaning of the word “may,” when used in a statute, is permissive and discretionary, not mandatory, although it is construed as mandatory when such construction is necessary to give effect to the clear purpose and intent of the statute. The trial judge thought that it should be construed in its ordinary and natural meaning here, and we entirely agree with his view. To construe it as mandatory would mean that whenever a street containing water or gas mains or sewers was ordered to be repaved, the council must order new service pipes and connections to be laid, notwithstanding the fact that all necessary pipes and connec
The appellant confidently relies on Gleason v. Waukesha Co.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
