The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-09
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME couaT-SPECIAL TERM.

interesting to City COntractOrs-Petcr
Riley After His Money for Grading and
Paving Flushing Avcnue-Why He
Cannot Get 1t.
Before Judge Tappen.
The People ex rel. Peter Riley VS.. Frederick
Schroeder. Comprehensive relator was the con-
tractor for grading and paving Flushing avenue,
and made application for o mandamus to compel
the Comptroller to pay him ST. 900 for work done in
June last Corporation Counsel william G. De Witt
opposed, on the ground that an act Of the last
Legislature prevented the city from expending
more than So SOC, 900 for local improvements at one
time, and that sum having been already expended
the REALTORS claim could not be now paid.
Yesterday morning Judge Tappen rendered his
decision In the case as follows:-
By chapter 02O OF the laws Of 1872 entitled IAN
ITO issue bonds or loan its credit for local improve
ments'' the act Of 1851 is specified and the power
$2sO0.OOO outstanding at any one time. The Comp
'trOler now makes due return that he has already
reached that limitation and that no funds are in
hand to pay the REALTORS claim. The reator there
upon insists that inasmuch as his contract was
made In March, 1S72 the act Of May 10. 1872 which
obligation OF that contract by
DERIVING THE COMPTRoLLER OF THE AUTHORITY
Tor an Unlimited issue Of bonds anS ha bV @
pairing the obligation OF the contract 1t concts
with the constitution and cannot be upheld The
position OF the relator Is not enable the contract
Is not impaired. The liability and obligation OF
The city to make payments thereupon are not done
AWAY with by the act The contract itself does not
say that the Comptroller shall issue bonds OF the
city TO meet instruments. 1t is competent for the
regard to debt and taxation. Section o. OF the sth
article OF the constitution provides that ait shall
oe snG 81 tce ta TO or the
and TO restrict their power Of taxation assess
ment, borrowing money, contracting debts and loan
ling their credit, SO as to prevent abuses in assess
fmentS and in contracting DEBT by such municipal
corporation" This duty has been clearly and
wisely exercised by the act Of 1872, which further
provides In the second section that any officer sign
Ing or executing any bond or obligation in contra
yentioa OF the first section OF the act, shall be
and Imprisonment. The assessment bonds
gradually but certainly paid OFF and extingushed,
new bonds but not exceeding the limit specified at
any one time From these new bonds moneys are
payment OF the claim OF the rolator OF any other
similar claim. The fact that the act of 1872 in its
operation causes delay in the payment Of monthly
certificates for local improvements does not
thereby
IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION
Of contracts within the meaning OF the constitution
infringe upon the restrictions OF the constitution
In that respect. The direct effect OF the act Is
neither to resclnd, abrogate nor impair any valid
that 1t affects the lemcdy OF the claimant, but
that remedy is not destroyed though it may be de-
case has performed the work for which he makes
the claim since the passage OF the act, and, OF
COURSE, VIII iuu kuoWleugc oil It's PROVISIONS ana OF
the restrictions which placed upon the OF the
credit OF the city and upon the Comptroller In
-spect to the issue OF the bonds, which the relator
now seeks to have issued, and while the contract
in question was made before the passage OF the
act, the debt or claim Hereunder has arisen since
that act, and for work performed after 1t became
law II would not be discreet or udici0us to pro-
.nounce law so clearly constitutional to be Of no
effect as to contracts made before Its passage.
Wholesome restraints upon the use OF public credit
are to he upheld, and limitation OF public debt are
not to be lightly set aside The reator Is not with
out remedy to enforce his claim for the work in
question.
The Judge further remarked:-"The Legislature
has said, by the act OF 1872,
now MUCH DEBT THE CITY OF BROOKLYN SHALL OWE
at any one time on It's assessment bonds and has
prohibited any larger sum than 81, 100000 do not
think it competent for the Court to say, or that a
case has been established in which the Court can
say that the debt shall be larger, and inasmuch as
the Comptroller has no means to pay tho claim In
question save by such bonds and The limit has been
reached In their ISSUE the Court ought not to direct
the Comptroller to issue further bonds at this time
and subject him possibly to the pains and penalties
imposed for violation OF the act. The application
for peremptory mandamus must be denied, with
.810 Costa ~