The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-25
THE PAY OF CITY lABoRERs.
Ymp.. ~t~nt Decision AfTtoting tho Power
M thu Municipal Authorities I'm Elk
ceeding Appropriations.

| Imp NtAat Decision Affecting the Power
| az thu Municipal Authorities In Ex.
ceeding Appropriations.
COURT OF APPEALS. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1865.
| John Doaovaa, Pespondea, vcrsus ire Mayor, Aldr
and Commonaly Of The City Of NsW Fork, Anp.s
| Lnts-Ths action wa~ for work and materials TIL,
complaint alleged that in November and December 1853
the plaintiff performed work and labor and service and
furnished material on the pubic reads of the city Of New
York at the request Of the del endants specifying the
value thereof and claiming that the defendants In
debted to him therefor.
The answer alleged that seventy Ave thousand dollars
was appropriated by chapter 27 Of the Laws Of 1858 TO
deray the expenses Of repairing roads and avenues Of
that year, that al the time OF the alleged employment
OF the plaintiff this appropriation was exhausted and
that there was and money In the city treasury ap
nlcabe to the payment Of his claim; that sprropria
been done by the plaintiff had been made; that the
necessity for " ork had never been certified by the
authorized by the Common Council
The plaintiff domurred TO tho answer and tho judy
men was rendered in his favor Al the special term and
affirmed at the general term awtna va
PORTER This hard case. great number OF Q
similar character now pending in the below de-
respondent and those similarly situated will be without
redress unless against those who without authority
rsa, the '"e ey Of New York snS III
other municipal corporations within the limits Of
dealt with ut the pleasure of city and county officials prac
caiy free from the OF sovereignty and
the limitations Of general laws for the protection or the
constituent body against favor tism corruption and I'M
providence. s..,.s x4-t.<
The answer Of the defendants not deny that the
expenditure In question contracted by the Corpora
ton; and the demurrer substantially admits that the
debt was contracted In violation OF law II
cedcs-1 That at tho time OF action alleged to
nave occurred the appropriation for the expenses OF re-
pairing the city roads for the year 1858
exhausted That Their neither was nor y In the city
treasury any money app cable 10 the plaintiffs claim. g.
That tie necessity for the work alleged in the complaint
was never certified BY the head OF tho appropriate do
partment g. That the work alleged to have boon per-
formed by the paintG authorized by vote or
the Common Council The amended charter Of the city
provides that emo expense shall be incurred by any of the
defendants officers whether the object of The expendi
turc shall have been ordered by tho Common coun or
not unless appropriation shall have been made cover
ing sach expense avs of 1857, r. SS4 % 1t fur
tner provides that ''no oxponure for work supplies
for which no CONTRACT h REQUIRED ahaIl be made EXCEPT
the necessity therefor be fed by the head Of the
arrrorIat2 department. and the expendIt IRE be
thorzed by the Common Council Laws VI 1867, $50,
ISL ..,e
The net approprialng the sum of SIS 900 for work
the roads and in tho year 1863 embraces
pressed provision that nothing therein contained should
be construed TO authorize any department Office OF
said Corporation other PERSONS to incur
any any cp or any o 70 % m
law, or exceeding in amount tho sums provided for re
spectSely by this act or by othor laws Laws Of 1868,
p. $40, sec. 81
The oxpendnra alleged in tho present case belonged
10 the Street Department Laws Of 1867, $50, Sec
% As there neither appropriation for tho work
certificate OF It's necessity by tho head OF the
dcrar,ln mt, and as unauthorized by tho Common
Council, the contract was made by tho municp au-
tloritcs in direct violation of law contract thus
made by public oiccrs, acting in purely hducary Ca
pacty Is simple and absolute nuty. The city has
power to act except through It's municipal officers and
whom they assume It's agents. to exercise authority in
disregard OF prohibitions applying alike to them and
their principal, their action IL wholly Intellectual unless
II be TO subject them TO personal liability for assuming
power with which the Law has not clothed them. Irish
Eq r. new ries)
Tie parties aggrieved havo remedy against the Cor
poration They were employed In contravontion Of the
policy and terms OF the statute and they cannot invoke
the aid oil tho courts TO enforce unlawful agreement
They could with the city except through its
authorized agents. and they chargeable In law with
notice Of the limitation Of official authority imposed by
general laws.
(fairlittle Gilbert; Dumford East, 16o; Hodges
City Of Buffalo; DEMO no. liz; Brady Mayor Of
Now York; Bosworth, 49, 1888; g. G. affirmed; Is
Howard, 42s; Supervisors Of Rensselaer, v. Bates II
New York. 2I2 Smith v Mayor of New York 4 Sand
ford 227; s. q. affirmed; Seden, 503)
The decision OF the Supreme Court should bc reversed,
with Judgment for the defendants on tho demurrer
All the judges concurng the judgment reversed,
with final judgment for the defendants.