The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-06-02
SUPREME cOURr-GENBRAL TERM.


Before Hon. Judges Clsrke, Sutherland and Allen
The People the Ration of McSpeson Baker rs Rob
taken by tho counsel Ter the defend mt in his
point IL disposed Of by the act OF April IT, $780, author
zng the Supervisors Of the county Of New York raise
money by tax for city and county purposes, BY the
sixth section OF the act they empowered to raise
collect addition to the ordinary taxaton the further
gum exceeding eighty thousand dollars to meet and
pay whatever pp TO that may be found due
to tho contractors with the Commissioners Of Records
Whether the Legislature had or had not the constitu-
Records under whose direction and supe,otcndencs the
work DONE yet the work having been done and
Legislature determining that the work was serv;cs
derei to the county they had tho right toax the
Of that portion OF the state TO pay for IL although
It cannot authorize the taking Of the property OF nd
f Srq ,s e. wSou %
II has the absolute TO determine what shall be
raised by taxa,on and the purposes TO which they shall
b. applied. II make appropriations Of money when
the public well being requires, and Of this alone
is the sole Judge IL spporon the public bu'thens
among all me tsspsj 'ng 81 me state OF among
the present the Legsasurs has deemed proper to
determine that the work performed by tho REALTORS for
the county Tor the public good aud without any refer
ence as the mode by which they authorized to
enter upon the performance OF this work. il has enacted
that they shall receive for IT, and has taxed
the inhabitants of this division q the S,ae tina. pur
pose. II lie no objection - tas that the Legislature has
not declared the precise auocnt Of the claim being L.
norant Of the exact value Of the service the specifics
a maximum amount beyond which the relator shall re-
ceive nothing at least in this way, for the services al
ready rendered. and it indicates the method BY which the
actual amount due shall be sscertained This tho Iegis
has much authority to DO Ms to specify the exact
sum absolutely In The first instance, and In neither
case have tho courts power to supervise or 70
view the action Of that branch Of the government
The Court concludes an elaborate opinion by saying tha
the REALTORS had no remedy by action and the only
edy 70 which they could resort for redress the writ
Of mandamus The Legislature could not therefore have
intended by the terms Judicial determination" d.
termination by action because such remedy did not e
LIST in favor Of the REALTORS The REALTORS could have hid
judicial determination except In proceeding of tins
nature and tho absence Of any specific direction In ts
act, to the manner Of this determination would
unreasonable to infer that any other mode ntendd
than that which the Court, where the proceedings
mandamus were pending, may deem expodient. We 40
therefore unanimously OF opinion that the remeS
adopted by the REALTORS ID the proper one and that 70
decision of the Special Term Is correct. But ia
that the decision appealed from H not strictly speakin
final Judgment although it decides the merits Of tho CD
troversy must dismiss the appeal instead of arms
the Judgment
whenever case Is referred by the Special Term, eva
when settles in It's order all the essential points
eue It nothing but interocutory order and no Nh
Judgment can DO entered until the coming in OF the
port ,..,
There can be an appeal only from final judgment.
Appeal dm Used with costs.