The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-12
THE RING SUITS.
Judge Aliens Opinion in the
Court of Appeals.
Right Of the County 10 Enter Civil Suits
Against Tweed, IngersOll 4 Co.
ALBANY, N. r.. June IL, 1874

ALBANY, N. Y. June IL, 1874.
In the case OF the People OF New YORK; appel
iants, vs.. James H. Ingersol, respondent Judge
William +. Allen, or the Court OF Appeals has de-
hvered an elaborate opinion. covering ninety
pages OF closely written matter. Judge Rapeiio
las delivered q dissenting opinion covering dity
pages.
The following Is but brief synopsis OF Judge
Aliens opinion
JUDGE ALIENS OPINION.
The history OF this acrion-a fragment only OF
which Is presented by the record before us-haS
been peculiar, and II the practice adopted Is TO
ripen into precedent may be regarded as unfor-
upon question directly in issue has been, and
should be regarded as the law OF the particular
case oy otner Judges ID SUBSEQUENT stages Of me
way can justice be duly administered. or
the decisions OF the Courts command the re-
spect OF suitors and the public The only
question in this case Is as to the
status Of the plaintiffs and their rights TO
maintain the action. That first presented by
the demurrer OF the defendant FIRST served with
process, and the decision was for the plaintiffs.
overruling the demurrer at Special Term, affirmed
at General Term, the three justices sustaining
their respective views In well considered opinions.
In view OF the magnitude OF the amounts involved
ana possible loss that might arise from dismissal
OF the appeal Incline to iorego the consideration
Of the question OF the practice and consider the
appeal upon It's merits as II no question existed as
to its regularity.
WRONG AGAINST THE COUNTY.
It Is not averred that the money in any legal
sense or equity belonged to the plaintiffs, so that
the defendants can be charged with the same AS
peratsa Directly against the State or the people
OF the State. The title to and ownership OF tue
money sought to be recovered must determine the
right OF action and II the money did not belong to
some other body having capacity TO sue this ac-
ton cannot DO maintained. people vs.. Booth:
plaintiff asserted that the State owned
the money, and in substance conceded
@ Sas Of al 20
examined at great length by counsel do not call for
an extended Consideration i the title to the money
.raudulently taken was IN the county OF New YORK,
and an action lies at the suit OF the Board Of
supervisors IN behalf OF New York county for It's
recovery.
is not alleged TO have occupied any Official posi-.
Ion, or TO owe any allegiance to the State.
cept such as every citizen owes and is
not charged with having occupied any fduciary
Yoak uness e SS Suy Of s ss 81 New
body p0ltio and corporate owned and
- he a1
trustee for the State by reason OF his tortious act
II the state has right o! action 1t results from
aud as an incident Of its sovereignty and must
necessarily be paramount TO that subordinate body.
and upon the exercise OF the right by the State
the right OF the corporation must be Suspended,
poration be barred or its remedy Other
wise party may be vexed with two litiga-
LlOnS. ana pOSSlDly nave TWO EeCOVeCleS against
him for the same cause OF action. find no author
lty Tor thus deprtvinR municipal corporation OF
civil and corporate right OF action, and or prop
erty in the discretion OF the law Oft1cer OF the
state county Is not independent OF the state
as sovereign. and It's boundaries and powers may
be enlarged or curtailed. An effort has been made
to distinguish the county OF New ork from other
counties OF the State In respect to Its powers.
privileges, obligations and corporate capacity as
OF the civil and political divisions OF the Sta
but there Is really no distinction between 1t and
other counties OF the State which In the least
Affects this question.
THE RIGHTS OF THE COUNTY.
| The Judgment OF the Supreme Court Is therefore
affirmed. There nothing IN the transaction Itself
or facts alleged In the complaint distinguish the
! case IN ptincipls rom any otaer IN which the
| funds or property OF county have been EN-.
bezzled, stolen or tortiousiy appropriated, OF
tending TO show the right o. the action or remedy
4 which would exist in such o case IN any county o
the State which Is not vested in and does not be
wrong complained OF here. Neither is II
| averred in the complaint that obstacles exist tC
| the c0unty's making and entering into such com
| plant. Was IL not plain and tree from all doubt
we might hesitate IN giving the judgment to which
our examination has led US, lest 1agrant wrong
the ground that the individuals acting in the
transaction under the statute were State agents,
and not tie agents oil the county, would lead
to serious results and greatly embarrass
the State IN respect to the many
species OF municipal obligations which had been
ing In the form or method OF execution from that
exercised in this case. The State cannot make
the actors State agents without assuming the
position and responsibility OF principal, especially
II the agency Is, as claimed here, OF character
emitting the State to the fruits and benefits or the