New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-11-16
LAW LVI,ELLIGENOE.
RUSS CONTRADICTORY TAXES.

SUPREME COURT-GEsERsL TsRs-Befors Judges EoNoSps
EDwaRDs MITCHELL, RoosEvELr and MoRRus
De Baum and Thistle against the Mayor &c Of NewYork
In this being application for an injunction to 70
strain the execution Of the contract to Russ Reid Tor
paving with Russ pavement Chatham St. the Bowery, &c,
temporary Injunction for which had been allowed but dis
solved by Judge Edonds at special term and appeal
taken by plaintiffs the general term which heard be-
fore the five Judges the Court Monday rendered de-
cision The following is the decision the opinion being
written by Judge Mitchell and adopted by majority o.
the Court Judges Edmonds and Morris dissenting aud the
latter giving minority opinion.
The following is the majority opinion being the decision
of the Court:
BIZ the Court-The fret question il. can person own
ing real in the City OF New York and paying taxes
on it prosecute action against the Cooperation on be
half Of himself and other tax paying citizens to enon
them from expanding the money to be raised by taxation
in repairing and paving street IN manner contrary 70
express law and tending to add to the taxes OF the ct
In Adrance vs. the Mayor, &C. suit was sustained in
where the Corporation about to appropriate the
moneys of the City contrary law In Kirby and others
against the Mayor &C. and Berrien suit was also sus
tanned by tax payers The Corporation being about 70 par
chase ground purposes OF burial out of the City In
Cbrsopher vs. the Mayor (l3 Barb 567 the questonwas
raised and ably argued General Term AMI decided in
favor of the right OF the tax to sue see foot Of
nothing that question but be regards the decision OF
the Court as authority until reversed. In Mlhau vs.
Sharp the Broadway Railroad case and IN Stuyvesant
VS. Pearss the Second av Railroad case the ques
ton was again presented at General Term and with the
same results.
The council for the defendants in this argued this
question in Christopher and his distinguished
cate made that question of the main points OF his ar
gument The question had therefore been fairly argued
and matuely considered aud passed upon before was
discussed in this The previous decisions should
therefore be adopted as conclusive until reversed
IL Il supposed that the Court in the above cases
overlooked the proceedings in the Revised Statutes
"a 20 proceedings against Corpnatons In Equity
Revised Statutes 49, Before that statute was passed
Chancellor Kent had decided that an injunction
did not lie at the su Of the Attorney Gensra to prevent
an Insurance Company doing banking business thai this
ae t to exceed its chartered powers Pubhc o9eae
over which ehancery had jurisdiction and was 70 be
met by the remedy provided in the Courts of law by quo
EarrdatO, Information. ATTORNEY General va
Utica Ins. Co, Jo X. 1907 But the Chancellor there
made broad distinction between that case aud case Of
priv ate injury He said if the Directors of the Utica lasur
ance Company appropriate the funds or capital OF
the Company 10 their own private emoium9nt o.
dsregarding the business Of Insurance, they were
TO direct the funds to the destruction OF that object
by making roads and canals building theaters or
churches have doubt this Court would have right,
and would be bound interfere and check the abuse
But when the question is whether Corporation has for
feted charter has usurped franchise, or has bro
ken penal law the case widely different this Court Is
not the proper tribunal sustain the prosecution to in
fict the punishment" Up. 3est
There IL DO complaint the part Of the stockholders
of misconduct the information founded on anything
Did not the Chancellor by this that If there were
any violation of the charter injurious to the corporatos
coed by Injunction but that il the act complained OF was
one affecting inurousy only the people in their sovereign
tyas by the usurpaton Of franchise no. granted by tho
people-there the Attorney General Of the
proper but his remedy al law was ample and
was therefore there only The Legislature after this
deemed the remedy law tedous aud the more sum
mary proceeding BY injunction necessarily gave by the
Revised Statutes power the Attorney General even IN
Of the usurpation Of fran hse, right 10 sue In
chancesy The giving OF this additional right 90 the At
ornsy General not intended Ia take away ANY nights
which private individuals had before enjoyed,
Accordingly. private Individual may stu obtain an Ia |
om usns IL nis ,r purposes unauthorized es rs char
thai Is Injury g. his private fsas u 10 ass tn
right Ia ef psvao corporation hen the psss ~ ths
referred 60 did nsl Ia any vsss wheh provided .er
.ehiss tho esksiss flsAs he Asfss tssess~l
bat ien all corporations ~hehes 81 peelis " rssse eF
,sf.ens whe tesiv had right - sac sae sesas Ag "
bill wnhest shs as sAe Asse4ssy teess~l ssslA
~. aus Ia yhsesess aud shs ~ fAAss@ sie ~ ssS
ihss islsss
TAI. Vvas, h.s,as sees.ssd as sast ses es,sf 49,
sseh la4ss. ~ Ne vssss s-t.sd >ea " ~ i-As1 ~
la lV1pss..ie u solailsss Zach spl.oA " a saaE
~ att add " ~ p9.ies ~ Ia ~ y.,Yi. -.i a.
Lsl asssI .iSiss ~ .Ii.ia ;o.s. s A " ~
49, ~, e1 y 40 t-a1 W .4s-rD9l shs 49, $3.50 -
Ln IA, " e.ss..ise saN-lisa saa4-ageti-s3 ~ a3i
'.Lc- Gls paSta Tao ps,pio ~ "
lU titi t1as VI PAX olL. t.lfA .4a le yeQp'p aasA
~ l4ls tAltll 10 a. SSs, 40 bf.H ~ ~ .. y
Y Masese a&.sl0o sS i'e5'F 9As S''S - ~s'N A9 NN'
'4ty NJ 5a i9stee va, vAsAss ga esseoselpa sss,l
ggsg ,s,ot WA, NNi.s y. " Xxx \. a ,as -
sss, u ne es.g y ctLsNg.ag ~ as Jesles Mo p
, ..sl;ss !, y lStSSa vs''s' sSsVS N'sa Nsal
1! t yqSSs \. s, , ,ss.S "a sgasss h s X
ssvei'ea, wttcptskh
wstNs lecggH " egls'se q ls,so aecs-. alygs
y y, le,A lvSA sA dad Y y eaA's@ a'sssA y iv