The New York herald., 1874-10-22
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME ooURT-sPEC1AL TERM.

The Fordham school Question-Deeision
OF Judge Pratt.
William II. wilkins VS.. The Board Of Education
OF School District No. / oi the town OF West
Farms.-The present motion Is made on behalf OF
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalry OF the city
OF New York Among other things to open the
default and vacate the judgment entered therein
on the 26th day OF December, 1879 Unless this be
granted the other branches of the morion require
no consideration. The petitioner claims that the
defendants have q substantial defence upon the
merits; that said mortgage was fraudulent at its
inception and made and delivered without war
rant OF law and 10 pursuance OF corrupt
thereby should be diverted from school purposes
and fraudulently misapplied oy the mortgagors,
nd sad .hs wa
squandered. The allegations contained in the
petition are too vague and general II was the
duty OF the petitioner to state facts and clrcum-
stances, SO that the Court could determine to
what relief the party is entitled But, aside from
the circumstance that no facts are set out tnat
would warrant the granting OF the relief asked
for, every allegation OF the petition Is fully met
not disputed that the defendants, by the unanl-
nous vote Of its members, resolved to obtain
loan and TO By SSnd
ana tnat said bond and mortgage was
duly made and delivered to the plaintiff. Neither
the same, duly advanced thereon the sum OF
$37, 900, and that this sum was actually expended
question. 1t further appears that the defendants
failed to pay the interest as stipulated In the bond,
ioreclose the mortgage, ana obtained judgment in
due course upon default. ON the question or
laches on the part OF defendants II is also impor-
tant 70 notice the conduct oil the parties after
entry OF judgment. On the 9th day OF January,
1874, the plaintiff served upon the city or New
York notice OF the entry OF Judgment, 70 which no
particular attention was paid. On the 2otn day Of
May following. he sent iurtter com.
President Of the Board oi Education Of said city.
calling attention TO the same matter and requir-
ing settlement On the 2eth day Of June the
gated the subject by Its committee, unanimously
recommended payment Of the Judgment. No pay
ment having been made further communication
was sent to the Comptroller Of the city OF New
York, in behalf OF the plaintiff, requiring immedi-
eight months having elapsed since the entry OF
judgment, the referee proceeded to execute the
o rne .e ss o1 Y
Of iorbearance and fairness, with no intent to de-
fraud; at the same time no just criticism can be
matter. 1t was the duty OF the authorities OF the
city OF New York to defer payment until they were
satisfied that the Judgment was just. ard proper
lien upon the property connded to their cnarge.
The remaining question, Is to the power OF the
dsendan. 70 make the mortssge 10 question re-
to the delendants' officers were duly authorized to
execute the mortgage, and the plaintiff In good
that the city OF New York can only lnterpOse such
defences TO the Judgment of thus mortgage as could
be tnterpOsed by the defendant (Chapter 6l3,
Laws OF iS7s; chapter s2a Laws OF ls74.l By chap
ter 407 OF laws OF 1854 the general powers
OF q corporation under the Revised Statutes
were conferred on the defendants These
powers embrace the authority to purchase
and hold real estate necessary to the purposes OF
the corporation. The power to establish free
schools was also expressly delegated and this
authority included all incidental powers necessary
to carry out the pnrpose contemplated by the
act. Under these powers 1 think the defendants
might lawfully purchase site, build school,
house. borrow the necessary money therefor and
secure its payment by bund and mortgage.
CurtEs va. Leavitt, Is n. Y, p. O.; People
ex rel Hayden City of Rochester. so. N. Y, p.
531 Ii these views are correct 1t follows that no
case is made out that would justify an order va
eating the Judgment herein. The motion is there
fore denied with $40 costs.