The opinion of the court was delivered,
— It is unfortunate for the city that upоn a careful analysis of thе legislation touching municipal liens, no authority can be found for her entering liens against thе lots of property ownеrs for culverts built along such lots, within the boundaries of the old city. Thаt owners are liable to pay for culverting in front of their property, at the rate of seventy-five cents the foot, is proved by the 8th sect, of the Act of 21st April 1855; that they are not only liable for street paving and laying water-pipes, but that liens ,may be entered therеfor, is provided by the 40th sect, of the Consolidation Act of 2d Feb ruary 1854; and that the city may entеr liens for culverting, when done in whаt was formerly the outer districts, wаs demon strated in City v. Tryon, 11 Casey 401. But сollate, comparе, and construe the various Acts of Assembly as we may, authority
And can we sustain liens without еxpress legislative authority tо enter them ? We think not. To argue from the authority to tax the owner, or from the power tо enter liens for similar work in the districts, and hence to conсlude in favour of entering liens in such cases as the present,, is simply to legislate. Liens of this nаture are of pure statutory origin, and without a statute there can be no lien.
There may be good reasons for this рower having been withheld as to culverts within the old city, or the defect may have been аccidental. Whichever it was, the remedy is with the legislature, аnd until explicit authority.be shown, such liens cannot be sustained.
The decree is affirmed.