New-York tribune., 1875-01-23
THE COURTS.
A CONTRACTORS CLAIM UPON THE CITY.
AYPEAL FROM A RKERRKRs JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF

A CONTRACTORS CLAIM UPON THE CITY.
xYPEAL FROM A RKyRRKRs JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
TINE CLAIMANT.
An appeal from o Judgment tn favor OF
John L. Brown against the Mayor for t470so ~ was
argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, General
Term The action was brought TO recover an amount
alleged TO be due upon contract with defendants Tor
materials and work done In regulating gradnR' ana
setting curb and gutter stones On Frstave between
Nissty-second and Observation-Disclosures, sno
nssxine ths sfdewaIksL Ninety per cent OF sne
amoms spectfied under the contract, tss.lee1s,
was claimed ~ due plaintiff accoro-
ing to the Of the contract The contract was SUD
mitted May 49, 1874 TO the Contract Commissoners
appointed by Chapter $50 Of the Laws OF 1874 vno Oh
March = 1873, gave their certificate that they nad ex
amned INTO the facts and relating 70 said
contract agreement and the work performed under
the same and were "satisned that fraud had been
perpeated In relation 10 such contract or agreement
or the performance thereof" Tae plaintiff also had
the certificate Of the City suveyor that the work had
been done.
The answer Of the city that the ordinance under
which contract was made wholly void foz want
OF proper Advertising that the contract was VOID Tor
that and because proposals not properly sd
vertised received the not properly
done garbage being used place OF sound earth for the
nR; that The Controller had no opportunity TO con
test the facts before the Contract ana
% days after the passage Of the law creating the Com
missloD, required 10 it.
The suit tried before A. C. Bradley referee Tse
city offered TO prove that the work was Improperly done
and that the Controllers counsel Mr. bfEahan, had no
opportunity contest the before the Contract
Com missioners, but the referee held their certificate
conclusive rejected the evidence, and gave Judgment
for plaintiff. From this Judgment the city appeals
James NJ Smith of counsel for the city, argued that the
irregularities preceding the contract rendered II
wholly void, 40 that there was nothing for the
certificate Of the Commissioners 10 make valid
In any case the statute drawn specially in
the interest OF the contractors should be strictly con-
strued BY fs words the power Of the Commissioners
expired Aug g. 1874, and they had no power 20 give
certificate seven months later Even n this ground
fatal the defense should have been permitted
10 show, if thev could that the certificate ground
less the having been before the COmmis
siODers, rather, IL for the plaintiff 70 show
airInatvey had been properly before the
Commissioners before the certificate was admitted
Even n the certificate valid, 10 simply placed the
plaintiff in the position OF having valid contract
and proof that he had failed to comply with 1t should
have beed admitted
Mr. pevlin. in reply, argued that the statute was a
remedial one, and 10 ee construed l6eray, and tbeEe
fore the oday eianse Vas merely directory As TO the
certificate It the nature Judgment, and final
the performance of the work. aud could not be at
tached eOlatersly. That with the certificate OF the
City Surveyor, to the amount due was sufficient.
The Court reserved Its decision.