The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-06-16

entire consideration far promise any part Of entire
promise, not in LIS nature capable Of separation be Illegal
Parsons Contracts $780, 3s2 Although the resolution
In question not strictly contract II has some OF the
tsme elements, anaoges may be gathered from
tina source, witch WILL Think tend 70 throw lgh. on ths
point here presented suppose the defendants by these
revolutions had agreed to pay this sum Of sloaoo 70
ler"n named, an compensation To him Tor
procuring he advice and opinions of the additional conns
70 be employed by the Corporation Counsel and fer do
Hayrg the expenses OF the suits mentioned In the reso
ton. think such contract would have been wholly
void. IL would be entire promise promise " do one
Ts "h 81. Sns 70 pay me a%% s'
and part would be good lille the other would be bal,
but he thing which the promiser would bind himself TO
would si be entire And the performance Of the pro-
mke lhe doing # the thing promised, would accomplish
the lie gal well the legal object. If 30,
how the sgrs ement could stand There resolutions how
ever, instead OF being contract TO pay either
create Icy the foundation for the obi
eaicp pay while the time they apar, the
money for the purpose OF paying aud direct ia application
that purpose. II seems not unreasonable T. say thai the
defend nts cannot apply money TO the yment OF debt
seives pay and that where the obligation to make pay
is far mDge with illegal matters a. to be void,
there the ordinance directing the moneys to be applied to
satisfy such obligation, Is equally void The foregoing
views relate the operative Of these resolutions, which
may be kened to the spaa,ing promising part Of
contract think the conclusion will he arrived A.
perhaps with greater certainty by another process. 10
every contract Ia essential that there should
BIO consideration which, as above stated must not be an
the consideration for contract s the reason which
moves contracting party TO enter into an agreement
(Websfers Dictionary Gritty contracts, p. II, speaks
Of the consideration the motive induce ment 70
the promhe; Parsons Contracts vol !, 300, says
the consideration the cause OF the contract Ths reason
motive, or inducement cause, must, II In agreed
all bspds be free from egaty In the or contract
,hirk is clear that any distinct cause, motive
be lead 70 the exercise Of legs
lstive power, though II Is not in strict, or per-
hAps not in any terms, contract, yet such q
cause, or motive or nducement must bs equal
In fraA nh In n AasA nf
buttons The motive cause or inducement which leads TO
the appropriation the belief the part Of the Common
necessary for the purposes which devoted and that
those purposes such he law sanctions Ut least
fact supposed fact the legislative body must have acted
In pa sing these resolutions. If the instrument any
material in epaable part OF the Inducements which led
IN the passage OF the resolutions merely induce
mept 10 vioaIe he law why should not that fact render
void resolutions prep rly the same ele
ment in tina consideration of a co, tract renders
that v0id2 u Ia as much the duty o. the munich va
councils city to conform TO tho laws Of the State, and
of he Legislature OF the STATE conform 10 the fundamen
tai law in the else OF their legislative functions,
II Is the duty Of individual citizens in their dealings
do the If the OF can well settled.
examine the acts Of The citizen and declare th,se void
which have thus arisen from such an impure motive or IL
legal nducement Why they not do IN same as " tho
resolutions in question: though they partake Of the
char of law than Of contrsC The only ground Of
principle which CONTRACT has been allowed n be i'm
peacbed for the illegally Of iH confederation, Is that Is
for t of the public prevents further and fu
niractcps the law to declare every such agree
ut void Does not the same reason exist In case like
the present. II may at hrsi seem that this view Of the
point under consideration Is rather specous than solid
But II the history Of tho passage OF these resolu-
tons does not show the contrary, Is easy TO suppose
PASS by the Board OF Councimen legal and valid
But appears from the adav on the part Of the defend
ants, they we're tw ice rejected by that board on many
third time upon their pAspage When the Board OF
dermen the resolutions remained for time uncon-
% a ss.s sn an s
pendte had been coupled with the legitimate one already
provided for ns Of course mposaibie for any 70
that the resolutions could MOI have been passed
wbou, This addition the illegal IN The legal purpose
did however, ~h the sds ion, ~ had failed N
the City Councils had deemed sufncie for the legal par
pose found IN be doubled. It liz doubled,
zen, uI con shall stand .s the latter ana be vsnaed As
10 the other part then The whole $4,000 may Dc applied
10 the legal purpose But who can say tha, e.he, braAch
the Common Council Intended TO give that ~hoe
appropriate the Of Is, 200 that soneS may
well be true thst there not actual majority OF tho
members u either Board In favor OF Inc legitimate
psr Of the prop@ed expenditure, and That some,
perbape essential portion Of the majority may have
bern Influenced N their votes by what confess edly
exceeded their powers II such method OF oxis aton IL
sspctiored In this case must course be In ALL and
whenever appropriation In legal and constitutional
form about 10 be Defeated In Legislative body, "a
cieDt number OF vote. be sained for the by
adding Illegal object ~ expenditure, aud increasing
be expep ,ed then the passage OF nsy be
secured BY ouch amendment thai made the
general orm 10 complete rsfutAiibn Of H. II at
becomes obvious thai n single NJ he sppro
prsed 10 several PURPOSES all those purposes must no
legal and vsbd other wise Of these results foos
ether the money 81 the Pablo may be applet
wholly 70 the Illegal purp~e, ex,ravsgapt or
unnecessary sumo rnsy be Avhcd on the legal objects NJ
terms divishlc; that the amendment allowing tho
sypro rated 10 be used 10 deSAy the expenses OF
suit brought by the Mayor be stricken surplus
aso and effect be- given that part NJ tho resolutions
i.spedy Ieba need not be remarked that this amend
ncnt, which thus doDominaied surpusage might but
70. The ijureon In thu Action, bsve Transferred .se
expenses VI the outs brought BY the Mayor. sot
taking this of the term surplussge, tho argu-
fact 'b, there division of tho moneys VI be used Tor
The purpose tho other. II any pa,i r. 70 he applied
70 the legal purpose, some limo must be drawn,
discretion must be exercised some Judgment must
be fo med upn the number OF counsel 70 be- employed
the hbo, 10 be required Of them, the value OF
y,css sben rendered Upon that point the Common
Council might well Judge, and, already said u thor had
declared that they thus sst apart specific portion Of
the whole Appropriated their action would have becn
Incapable ofteview In ibis Court But the dsorcti cIn
hded v Them the subject be exercised bv the
Court The Judgment or determination any boty
or uibups TN. point you'd be -sbd the OF
the Common Council In the passage ~ The Amendment 10
reference 10 the brought by the Mayor Put Il also
urged that the,e h In fact but object purp,-s 70
Which The appropriation IL 10 be applied, via 10 ascertain
he Ultimate design which thoe Who framed asd
passed the resolutions had In view But they proppe "
accomplish hat design 10 two distinct methcdsone by
taking the advice OF other council addition of
their counsel who the hes< Of the law department;
the oher, BY Assuming 10 defray the ~
,uts Zach Of these mchods Involved dsnct aud eeoa.
rate ess~nssa- they clearly formed distinct o,-cs or
ciasses Of expenditure They blended together In
single enscfucnt 10 the words OF tho oks, sithe
two mingled and boupd teether that they cannot
be separated" Tue motion modify the injunction must
be DENIED
The Turf.
CENTpryrfaE SDrTRsp Il.