The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-07-23
Important to Gas Consumerx.
SUPREME CoURT-SPECIAL TERM.


july q The People, BY the Attorney General u.s. James
Booe and ohes (the Metropolitan Gas Company.
motion for quo oaranto against The defendants for
assuming TO act incorporated company without
thory Of law In the complaint 1t is alleged that the
defendants have themselves together and
claim to be corporation and unlawfuy acting
corporation under alleged act Of the Legislature Of the
State Of New York. cnted can act TO incorporate the
Metropolitan GasIght Company OF the city Of New York,
passed April IT, 1856, but further alleges, that although
sad alleged act passed the Assembly the 9th day of
April 1865, and the Senate on the 10Th day Of April,
1906, yet it was not approved or signed BY the
Governor until the 7tn day of APRIL 1855, and that the
legislature adjourned without day the 18th day Of
April 1866, and not again in session that year.
BY an averment Of the complaint the &c. in ques-
NIn made part OF the complaint. (Sesson laws Of
e e 81 snu
liz ut Company OF the city Of New York. and empowered
20 ley their pipes in the Streets &c. for the purpose of
conducting gas &c but this only be done by obtain
ng permission OF the Board Of Common Copocil The
complaint further alleges that the 18th Of September
the Board of Councimep granted such permission but
the 9th OF December the Board Of Aldermen non concur
red, and the resolution lost, That 2Oh De-
eem6er 1895 the Board o. Couccmn passed raso!uSn
goth Of December 1885, Tue complaint insists that tho
defenonns and theft associates not coTporaou and
have no right 10 act rs SUCH and that the act OF tue A
glsature approved by the Governor become
law, II vas unconstitutional and vo,d because not ap-
proved by the Governor un after the adj ournment OF
the legislature and for this reason failed to become law
The Judge enters deliberately into law and ques
tons arising In the case and concludes his decision by
saying that be cannot in the view Of question
presented on the part OF the people, suppose the epp
cane for this special act Of incorporation thought that
the Legislature thought that the corporation might
able 10 obtain tho permission and authority within the
year, and this permission In the special put
with reference TO toe general law for the purp
relieving the defendants from it. II plainly within
the power OF the Legislature entirely to relieve defend
ants from the final provision Of the general Law and
think key intended to do by the special provision in
their special act But suppose this So and that e.
feet be given and should be given the prov
sion and the special provision both. This special prov
zion OF The act declares that the company shall be
deemed to be in practical operation from the time the per-
Torrance and the authority obtained Then why was
net the application OF the defendants poraton by
petition to the Board Of Coupcmen in June 1855 alleged
in the complaint Of the Of the
Of s business within the provisions Of the Revised Sta
tutes? AS the Legislature had fit do so absurd
thing to declare effect that the obtaining the permis
Zion and authority should be deemed the business for
which the oeen 1ants Incorporated, do not see
why the Court must not hold that the application Big tho
Corporation for the permission and authority 1855 aud
the proceedings oil the two boards thereon alleged the
com paint were not commencement of its business. II
s not alleged in the complaint that the company did not
elect prtsden. thin The year and must be assumed
that organized within the year by the election OF
president within section OF the act. Upon all the
questions raised by the demurrer this ny con-
cusou s that the defendant must have Judgment on the
demurrer, with costs.