The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-01-16
Supreme Court.
ALI the Juaticaa nraaant.

AL the Justices present.
Dagid p Halstead rs n. Mayor &C., q ne CRY q
upon two warrants or drafts given BY the defendants,
and made payable to P. A. Cowdrey order; one in
The proof .howi that the drafts after having duly
endorsed were received by the PLAINTIFF and there is
evidence that be had any other notice of their cons
themselves No objection is made either to the form
in which they are drawn, or to the manner In which
had no authority to give them The consideration Of
the draft for the larger amount consisted Of taxable
name OF the People Of the State or New York against
eight Of the Supervisors Of the city aod county Of New
YORK. to recover I: penslty Of $3.50 from each Of Of
the Associate Judges Of the Court of General Ses-
sions Of the city and county Of New York, as they
"Aot to enable the Supervisors Of the city and
county OF New York to raise money by tax" passed
a' mns s:
which bad accrued in the defence Of the suits.
The tuts were commenced In the month Of Septem-
recovered against the defendants in each Of them On
tie sth May, 1S47 and few days before the drafts
Council suthorxir and directing the Conn troler to
pay the amounts Of the several judgments, with the
taxable costs and easonable counsel fees It was
der this resolution that the drafts were drawn and
they appear to have been given for all the costs and
fees which bad accrued In the defence of the several
euits The first question to be considered u.s. whether
the defendants had the corporate right and authority
to give the drafts for such purpos The charter
der which the defendants were incorporated gives
them express power in reference to SUITS except
that of suing and defending suts in their
name and capacity The extent to which they may
every other Incorporated body they must have by
implication, and a. q necessry incident to the pow
era expressly granted to them the right to institute
and defend quits for the purpose Of protecting their
property and interess and also for the purpose
of protecting their corporate privileges and franchises
This js rebt OF self protection which must belong
well to artificial - to natural persons But as &C.
neral rule only be exercised in cases where the
corporation !: sPsrty to the suit; rnsrs may DO
city, the defendants can exercise this right where
they Iet the actual parties to the record as
in defence Of titles acquired from them, and which
they are hound to defend or In defence Of persons
sotipe by their authority. and In their behalf. The
nd sut in either Of the oes last supposed it, that
although not the nominal parties, they would be the
real rites In interest In cases however. in which
the real parties in interest their corporate rights
TO jnttitute or defend suits must In the
b. fore u Il sppears that the costs and fees for which
the drsfts In question were givep did not accrue in
any suit brought against the defendants, against
any persona who acted under their authority and in
their behalf On the contrary they accrued on suits
sRsinet persons who acted their own individual
spopsibty The suits brought, too for the pur-
po'e Of enforcing claim which the defendants had
no interest in restng and for which they were not
liable They were, In NO rsspect whatever the parties
in interest And although question as to the CON
Judges held their ofces might have arisen incden-
tally, the IL not altered At the time when the
suits ced the act under wncn the aseo'
ciate Judges appeintd had bee in force for up
wards Of yesr and they had acted as members OF
Court Of General Sessions during the greater part OF
that time No proceedings bad bee instituted by the
the purpose Of showing that their corpor
ate spcbWes had been abridged or impaired by the
appointment Of such Judges The oonstitution atty
Of the law under which they held their ofces had
teen tsciy scsussced in and does not appear .nst
| ne defer eants, in this respect considered !,
any infringe ment Of their corporate rights aud
privileges II the Supervisors chose 70 assume
different ground snd to di,obey the Law which required
then to allow the accounts Of the associate Judges
III, did 90 at their peril and they should bear the
their own responsibility, and the penalty for their mis-