New-York tribune., 1868-03-23
THE COURTS.
THE WOOD LEASES.


Sutherland on the demurrer in the suit OF Christopher
Pullman against the Mayor, &c, ana feiuahuo "Oo" "
set aside the Nassaust. leases
The defendants above named except Fernando Noog
dcmur to the complaint upon the gfoau lhat the pt
has not legal CAPACITY To and that said complain.
does not state facts sufficient 20 constitute cause oi
action against said defendants or ethcr n ten by Sau
dpfendauts suppose meant said detcdants other lah
Fernando Wood II therefore the complaint does not stare
facts sufficient to constitute cause G acs;on ag1nH ,
either Of the defendants 0tDer thln IeIhaHu9 NU'I
the second ground or cause OF demurrer must pe OIt
ruled The demurrer does not Islse e guSsIh c Se
made party or parties defendant OF aeIehdahts oy @ o
of New-York" In other words, do not
think that the demurrer raises tho question whether te
Gil other than the plaintiff could he sued OF nade parties
defendants by the name or words me Common oodiCl
the City OF NcwYork were separate or independents cor
pOrate body. assume, was assumed by the connsei
be maintained only under or by force OF section Oh e
act OF April 25 1854, commonly called the CITY Tax 10y
OF the act is constitutional aud valid this joint denur
rer Of all the defendants, except Fernando Moou - -
demurrer must be ovcrrued II the complaint - sta,Ss
OF action under that section Against the Coint
the members of the Common Council other @ llah
the plaintiff at tho uGe tIe nossaJ or adopted
Now. although the question IS suroHnGe&d 10 resiion
70 be constutonai that the complaint does not state
OF action under II AGAINST tho common & The
piantii The question decided recently by me IN Braay
agt The Mayor &C. was very dineTent question: hs
trust any one who may have occasion TO read my opinion
In that case must have not the opinion before me.
but nothing init will be found interfering az
all with my holding IN TINS case that lhe cOuIlut w.
no contain Of action under the sad thlTd secto
OF the act Of 1864 against tne Geiendas hg & npnd
Council Of the city Of NewIOrk or against the ueithu
ant or defendants whoever they are or may be- VINO nave
appeared III ls hcti5n , 1nu Tji 81 ~ YorES with
the other defendants other than Fernando Wood IN
the demurrer assuming said third section To be cosu
tonal But IS that section constitullOhn Inns 1cIo
brought by the plaintiff as member OF tine common
Council OF the City OF Newl ork, and assume. as was
assumed by counsel on the ARGUMENT that whoever Were
made defendants by making the Common Council OF te
City of NewG ork' defendant or defendant were made
deendauts ms corstees OF the plaintiff under said third
section The plaintiff had not legal capacity TO biing
power OF said third section either cOtrustee as tax
payer or otherwise Therefore the first ground or cause
sue" raises the constitutional question, which was ar
ued in this case but which not raised or argued or
decided in Brady The Mayor before referred To- Inc
constitutional provision which j INSISTED makes sec
on Of the act Of April 25 1854, unconstitutional ana
private or local bill which may be passed by the Legsa
ure shall embrace more than one subject and that shan
Co agt The Mayor Seld, 2j3 Judge Gardncrin speak
ing Of this constitutional provision said that ihe purpose
Oft was THAT neither the members Of the Legislature,
nor the public should he msed by the titie' Ana III
The Mayor agt. Colgate q Kern, iG the same Judge
sad "Now IL is notorious that the discrepancy between
headings and subjects OF our laws, was 80 frequent
that constitutional provision was deemed necessary 20
! ators whose knowledge Of bills supposed
| 70 be gathered principally from the titles"
nart is a local act or bill All of its provisions including
section s. relate TO the City Of New-lOrk lts main pur
pose and subject the raising Of certain moneys by
local taxation and the expenditure thereof for local pur
pDsrs. that is the expenditure Of the moneys be
raised by the authorized taxation for local purposes II
eases are needed show that the act local the case o
cited may be referred TO- This main purpose subject
are expressed in the title OF the act which II an Act to
enable the Board of Supervisors OF the County Of New
| York TO raise money by tax for the use 81
the coPGPGn Of The The tIGyudISe G Of NsSTSfE Sc2eS
assume that the raising the money by tax ana the eN
pendre appropriation Of the money so to be raised
by tax constitute but one subject WITHIN thc meaning on
the constitutional provision 50 that the provisions of the
which authorized the raising OF the money 10y local
taxation aud the provisions which provide Tor OF specify
its expenditure or appropriation embrace one subject
the title The question n whether the subject ~ Sec
ably 10 the plaintiff does relate the authority 10
impose the TO the expenditure or appropriation Of
Any legislator who heard the title Of the act read and
made any inference AS 20 the purpose and subject o the
pose and subject OF tho act the siug 81 certain
moneys by local for the city Of NcwNork for the
In view Of the constitutional provision be had ground
/ for suspecting that such provision - sec had
| 10 say that See relate, 10 the expenditure or
ePproPai0n OF the moneys or any 1"in nv nt,S taS
The purpose and subject OF Section near ns can
define them may be said 10 be the Institution Of
rmedy or Of new rcnedcs for alleged breaches
by the Supervisors Of the County OF NeNlork or the
Common Council Of the city Of NeW.lork u declares
the Supervisors and the Common Council 10 he trustees
Of the city and county property funds ana ers 80 Tar
as the same are may be committed to their maunge
ment control and the resident tax payers 10 be eess
oue trusts In respect to such property funds ana ehccts
and gives any cotrusee OF any such oest"i cue rf h
the rights OF cO-trustee or 6csm que trust IN respect
| 10 such property, &C. Ia prevent waste and injury
The property funds. and effects mentioned are all the
property funds and effects OF the city and county 80 far
as they may be without limitation a. 10 time com
med 20 the mana cement control Of the Supervisors
or Common Council There u not preeure for saying
tnat the trust relation created declared and the
quen remedies gwen are limited or confined TO ihc
moneys be raised by the tax. think may say that
there is preense for saying that the trust relation
created declared, and the consequent remedies
relate AZ all 10 the authority O raise the moneys by
tax the expenditure thereof An honest and fair
interpretation of the constitutional provision, and OF SAID
Section g. requiring 10 hold that the section was M
serted In the act and passed part thereof In contra
yeution Of the constitutional provision and thereupOn
that Section s unconstitutional and void The result Il
the demuTring defendants must have Judgment on
/ their demurrer with costs.