New-York daily tribune., 1858-09-13
La W INIELLIGENCE.
THE LOwBER CASE.

THE IoWBEk CASE.
SUPREME COrRT-SpGCi,L Trsa--Ssrr. n-bae10
and the Mayor. NC, ot Nevfork
This action u brought IN the name o the feopses
and A. 4. Flugg as Controller OF the city aud co.
porator and tax payer on his own behalf ana on 10.
half of all other corporators and Taxpayers, againt
tho defendants To obtain Djuncion staying the pro-
ceeings upon judgment, and praying that the Judg.
men, recovered by the defendant Lowber may be 80
aside and that the defendants the Mayor, &c., may
be enoined from completing the purchase of certain
and t Low bcr oE market Purpo. aud To soen No.
irsot void.
mad. in January, 1851 In the Board Of Aaermep, and =
February, 1881 by thr Board OF Counciin,~n.
y III. omission rsturn the wiz
hs ohecton. hi. re.ou,ou bcsms law the -spstios
days The deed rendered TO th. Mayor and Coe-
roller refused scc.p, eoplts the
rha-' subsequently Lowb"r brought an sction again" N
Mayor &c. and them the amount of ths
money the said premise, seed to b. sold sal
h, Issued execution therefor The cause WAS brought %
pDo the pleading and motion was made 10 d'"' 'ne 0"~
p,,int for the reasons hereafter stated.
complaint alleges sarons such want oi Pow~
make the purchase. the improper mod" OF mahnfr-oyNs
resolution and by the Controller that The purchase vs.
ez bs, the price paid foI The land esoeeded =. vsus as
tho property encountered by nosisr and inst 10 psaS
the resolution for the lrchsr N. Common Council w~ su"v
Of an sbu.s of trust and Of asurps,ion in ofhe
The defendants filed their denying the allegations
upon which the action was founded
.h. couI, ., asasrsi Term in The aon Of Lowber ct
Mo-. M On Ss ,o op. lIr 70 grsrl eoasass % ss
VI the Controller other taxpayer and security
ws b. given damages arising the injunction.
since ths, order was made General Term Of THE District
hss decided that 'sSpsyer could msnan such On ston
THIS decision would control nr a. 10 the man,,nsner o ta
Son ia the name Of taxp'yor whsteSs, nhsht ge
epon the question then unlimited 70 ths Gene. rr sss -
onroer arpsys under that decision. would be bound
% dismiss the complaint ,,-.,s .,...
Ihr T1opie ~ ln. stae SIC 80 y.,n - -. .e,is.
Tr-'ioh i tnen Pr'rht~u ~ - ,"x T.. 40.
assnst municipal corporation for any alleged irsud N msn
contract, or 10 prevent the exercise oi P"~s NOV p"~
by them under thrir chsrteH -. x.Ls
Proceedings ~ way oi inor"ssn nssr ul ~ ~"
England and this country agsnst computations and are ee~
In tho books Those proceeding, na's ieP"s.y 80.
sustained 70 restrain such corpors'on' nom os ", x -
ton ot thrir charters OF nom exercising p"Vrs uys -
by them IN ,he Attorney General 70 NE bmhsnam sns
Oxford Railroad Company ~ La" 70 n, y ~ lno Lott
.nAuVro, 'a1s iu , , an e, n ,hsy are author.
s,Isa . .l,h Sbs ,,Sh, sf Nh. rs,bIie bvs
t different thns 10 ,ay nnrfe "oi. Is su'bcihs
that be restrain The doing o tne worA . az
company -hsn p'rtorih Ytnri H"is at'hs, . - ,ah
~ might otherwise be neglected. the Attorney orh7su
hss In snoh authority 70 represent the public ,
In the Attorney General Va Wilson ~ snr 10 Jni osJ -
-ad, Th. Count hs. Jurisdiction u reissr asss" o""~'
slie rstiou- ~ corporate property" re-, -.
III" cited in n. Attorney Gehersi '" ot.s
Company, q Joha, ch Hep p S'ol sri 20 noy ~S
"pi,a, vr ~ a' :. -. ~ Id,r :. nv infsrnsou
~ ne w -sc of the Cod~ ~ J nd Ia
abolished. and an seton ~ slDstitu.ep i -. -. ~.
lsraou IN sections ~ ana ~ 49, me nroois
A,t"rari tsngf' n', '"ns sn ''''"" ~ Wv ~
sdf- 20 tie dflc1y -, ~ -. v.v. 49,,
T. must be observed, however, ust 81 49, ~. - IN.
brought in he name q the Aorney ovnsis aa ,,sA ~ \,
me rams Of the Peop. such well be dccbse1
do no, however consider for 'he dispDstor
h. 20 decide qse.,ion Even concains nse
.hr sctou rnsy b. maintained IN the name 81 me reop
,r naunosl corrostion. n certain cases. have host
oo in conclusion that those proco.dinss csnnoe
b. I'd ths which sought 20 them In ,his
sotoa action D. msn'sired all IL can onJ b -