Case ID: ny_102/html/0695-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Earl, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Mingay et al., Appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson et al., Respondents.
    The restrictions contained in the charter of the village of Saratoga Springs (§ 61, chap. 220, Laws of 1866) against the expenditure of money and the creation of a village debt were subsequently repealed as to the water commissioners of said village. (Chap. 557, Laws of 1868; chap. 763, Laws of 1872.)
    (Argued April 20, 1886 ;
    decided June 1, 1886.)
    
      . This action was brought by plaintiffs, as tax payers of the village oh Saratoga Springs, to restrain the individual defendants, as water commissioners of said village, from carrying out a contract with defendant, the Holley Manufacturing Company, on the ground that the debt and expenditure thereby incurred were in violation of the village charter.
    The following is the mem. of opinion :
    “ The restrictions contained in the charter of the village of Saratoga Springs (Laws of 1866, chap. 220, § 61), against the expenditure of money and the creation of a village debt, were repealed as to the water commissioners of the village by subsequent legislation (Laws of 1868, chap. 557; Laws of 1872, chap. 763), and hence the debt and expenditures complained of in this case were legal and unassailable by the plaintiffs. The reasons for our conclusions are so well stated in the opinions delivered at the Special and General Terms in the case of People, ex rel. v. Leary (17 Week. Dig. 116), that it is not required that they should be re-stated here.
    
      “ The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.”
    
      Matthew Hale and John It. Putmam for appellants.
    
      Eseh Gowen and G. 8. Lester for respondents.
   Earl, J.,

reads mem. for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.