Case ID: ny_66/html/0648-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Folger, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William H. Dodge, Respondent, v. The Village of Catskill, Appellant.
    (Argued May 2, 1876;
    decided June 20, 1876.)
    This action was brought to recover the amount of an award made to plaintiff in proceedings instituted by defendant under its charter (chap. 68, Raws of 1860) for lands proposed to be taken for a new street.
    Hpon petition of twelve freeholders a jury was summoned and impaneled, who assessed plaintiff’s damages at $125. He made demand of that sum of the board of trustees. He was notified that there was no money in their hands to pay the same, and that the award would be presented at a meeting of the taxable inhabitants to be voted upon. The board subsequently called a meeting to vote a tax to pay the awards, and at such meeting the vote was against the tax. Reid, that under said charter the discretion as to the amount of taxation and the object to which it shall be applied was reserved to the taxable inhabitants of the village, save where the amount is limited by the charter, or the tax, is local and partial in its effect; and that the final power of ratifying or defeating any plan of the hoard of trustees needing the laying of a general tax, the limit in the amount of which is not fixed by the charter, which is the case here, rests with the taxable inhabitants. Also, held, that under the peculiar provisions of the charter the award of damages did not make the appropriation of the land a fixed fact so as to divest plaintiff of his title, as the final power of determining whether a street shall be opened, lands taken and damages paid therefor, is, under said provisions, vested in the taxable inhabitants, and no land is appropriated until an affirmative vote upon the tax for that object is given. If such vote is not given, the prior proceedings are nugatory, and the owner’s title is unaffected. (Buell v. Lock-fort, 8 H. Y., 55; Ha/udJcvns v. Rochester, 1 Wend., 53.)
    
      Jacob I Werner for the appellant.
    
      James B. Ol/ney for the respondent.'
   Folger, J.,

reads for reversal and new trial.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.