Case ID: ny_63/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Andrews, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert F. Ford, Appellant, v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent.
    The board of supervisors of the county of New York have no general power to lease premises for armories; their authority to execute such a lease must be found in the statutes, and where unauthorized by statute the lease is invalid, and no liability is incurred by the county thereunder.
    Under the provision of the Military Oode (§ 120, chap. 81, Laws of 1870), authorizing and requiring the supervisors of a county, in certain cases, to erect or rent a suitable building or room for an armory, the authority only arises when the duty is cast upon the supervisors to act by a proper demand being made upon them as prescribed by said section.
    (Argued December 8, 1875;
    decided December 21, 1875.)
    The provision of the act of 1873 (§ 2, chap. 758, Laws of 1873), declaring that nothing contained in any act theretofore passed should prevent the payment of arrears of rent for armories, etc., in cases therein specified, was not intended to and does not confirm void leases or authorize the payment of rent thereon.
    This action was brought to recover rent due by the terms of lease, alleged to have been executed between plaintiff,-as lessor, and the board of supervisors of the county of New York, as lessees, of certain premises in the city of New York. (Reported below, 4 Hun, 587.)
    The lease was executed pursuant to a resolution of the board authorizing the leasing of the premises for the purposes of an armory. The resolution was based upon the report of a committee of the board) setting forth that the Sixth regiment needed an armory, and that “ other portions of the militia have pressing needs of new and additional accommodations.” The premises leased were assigned by the board for the use of the Twelfth regiment, which regiment has occupied them since that time. Held, that the lease was invalid, and the city not liable, the court laying down the propositions above stated. ■ . ;
    
      Wm. H Townley for the appellant.
    
      James C. Carter for the respondent.
   Andrews, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.