Case ID: abb-pr_7/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clerks, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HANDLEY a. THE MAYOR, &c., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
    
      Supreme Court, First District;
    
    
      Special Term, April, 1858.
    Injunction to Restrain Official Proceedings.
    An action cannot be maintained to declare void an assessment made by a municipal corporation, and to restrain them from enforcing it, on the ground that the proceedings are invalid, although the alleged invalidity does not appear on the face of the proceedings, so that it cannot be reached on certiorari.
    
    A complaint which states only such a case, is bad on demurrer.
    
    Demurrer to complaint.
    
      J. R. Flanagan, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. R. Lawrence, jr., for the defendants.
    The complaint stated that the plaintiff was the owner of ten lots on the south side of Fifty-fifth street, in the city of New York, commencing 100 feet westerly of Eleventh avenue, and of six lots on the northerly side of said street, commencing 100 feet westerly from said avenue: that by an ordinance of the defendants, approved by the mayor, January 4, 1850, it was ordained that Fifty-fifth street, from Tenth avenue to the Hudson Eiver, be regulated and graded under the direction of the street commissioner, and assessors were appointed to make an estimate of the expense of conforming to the provisions of said ordinance, and to make a just and equitable assessment thereof upon the owners and occupants of houses and lots intended to be benefited thereby / that the street was regulated and graded under said ordinance, and an assessment made therefor, which, on the 24th of September, 1854, was confirmed by the Common Council: that the assessment made on each of the plaintiff’s lots was more than one half of the value of the said lots as estimated by the ward assessors for said year : that the assessment for regulating, &c., was void for that reason: that the same was an apparent lien on property of plaintiff, and a cloud upon his title : that the defendants threatened, and were about to sell and expose the lots for sale for the amount of such assessment. ' An injunction was therefore prayed for, enjoining, &c., defendants from selling, &c., the plaintiff’s lots, and it was prayed that the said assessment be cancelled.
    The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action, and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
    
      
       As to what is the proper ground of demurrer in such case, see Wilson a. The Mayor, <Stc., of New York, 1 Ante, 1; and 6 lb., 6.
    
   Clerks, J.

—A court of equity will not assume jurisdiction to review the proceedings of a municipal corporation in prosecuting a local improvement, or in assessing or collecting the means to complete it, if there exists no other reason, for its interposition than the alleged invalidity of the proceedings.

The common-law writ of certiorari is the appropriate remedy in cases of this nature; and it is no reason for granting the remedy prayed for in this, action, that the defects, of which the plaintiff complains, in the defendants’ proceedings, do not appear upon the record; that they can only be substantiated by extrinsic proof; and therefore that the objection could not be raised on a certiorari. (Mace a. The Trustees of the Tillage of Newburg, 15 How. Pr. R., 161.)

Judgment for defendants on demurrer, with costs.