, 1876-11-29
THE COURTS.
o.u4;nuotIon of the Arguments in
"o" the Gas Case.
,,,,v VIII Probably he Concluded
a This Afternoon.
. Warehouse Equitable In
q mYanco Company..-New Suits.
GAS.
rr. WEST s,pB coMrANy's CASE,


GAS.
TIE WEST SIDE coMf"Hf'S o1oh,
n. IIor. Leonard Swott rcsumcd hls afeu-'
a.us on psas'r snorrrson "a. TIc CIV, 10 restrain
h.he case u ,ho viii, oil. lie
III city from ilg'ltl"9 luz "se.oe W." 49, "i,a ~
ssr,ned that the city llau no power ~ t''a"o =
pstt ss..set for 60 long tin,c,tilor to levy tax
e.,,, m n contract to lght tho streets for ten
annually wv II, I'm, ,nado s,rcn,os efforts to
}s.ss. Ihe a"sa, t.ly "aa md tocn "a credit
rauce its e1ronses ""0 H~~i
'".,nratrcd. Tho gas appropriation WIS
,Fo that for sewerage purposes, Which went
ou from Ss,a M w ..o,,nd ~ c1rcssvo crnousc. Tho
Nyur on ihc elou"u " ,sas - ~ a,,,oliv
tv. that the approp''aton VIZ ~ ~ a,,a. an''ay
,,,dc showed that 1t wns t'ae lntehtlon ~ al'o"
ss,nge reduction at any time. II %as IN,
ended to nsks aoF ,ne a. No ssn.
hepowes OF t"c ivy ~ KY ~, ~, ..,,,,S".x
tanY or corporation eou'u nDio Ill a,olt'a,'
.s.rk over tho actions OF tho Common Counclls
ns soald make one contract ono yoar aud another
mother year, aa ~ o'.n3 U5 wv Inv nnis for ono M.
Butts contracts eoula w on'y ias ,.'' o"0 Nv. w.
rropr,ssion OK one year, 80 that II esaoula hot
s,rde, OF curb the next Council. Tho expcndi-
nrs. s,sss wcrc also to be based OH the npp.opra-
stss nes. snd cot,,d not bc larger or for longer
.%s !u,'stt dan tho appropriation.
p'1' 'A''' MIR. uouDY
,,uovrd on hc!alf Of the complainant in close
.oa'r W. Exhaustive nrgunout, lu regard to tho
s,a,Y Of tic case, he held TINT there was no
Ss.on 10 interfere with tho contract OH tho
,rnmnd u expense, as there was no evidence
ss.tsycr 10 show thnt tho price pnld was exces-
". Thc contract was first made in 1850, anti
snin vi, entered into In 1879. Under It large
,1o,lnt Of money Ind becu Invested in tho bust
rss. r.,S e1pensiye works had been erected, and
N.Y., I,n,,rnunuirnta nl1dn on Tho faith 81 tfiE
ttt1 Tint Il would keep its word.
fhe ouly reason why the contract could Do
5,iuea to bo invalid was bcGaus" Il was beyond
,sr power Of the Common Council to make 1t.
itttca,ed to tho Council IN tho n,attcr, lcgis-
1,,Ise or political. The city could erect new
INNS. lar new pipes, or, possibly, take gas froH
,nolher rou,pAry, but It could not tako
fn,m the Peoples Gas Company the
malut, pipes, and latnps 1t had nj
utscpt, nor rcfllRc TO phy the agreed price dur.
In the term Of the contract, II tho making ol
tgeb contract were the exercise Of Legislative
poter OF tho alienation Of such power, tlcn tlu
taeh contract could be made for. q year,
tns DC streets must be by the city itself build;
jce works anu laylng mathis a City Council Ind
i.ebatiyc, executive, md ministerial powers.
nd they might be, public nnd political or Ert-
vic. contfacts could be made by Legislative
bodies which arc valid and binding. An act Of
legislation In tho nature Of proposition Tor n
supposed public cud, accepted BY u corporation
q nitrate Individual, became y contract anu
t[gatng. Tic provision OF the charter making
leqntfact void except where an appropriation
tl been previously Hlnae therefor, was only
directory. It only demanded HI appropriation
eoace1upg the work, and every annual appro-
p,i,tIon made the contract valid for that ycur.
The court, moreover, had Jurisdiction, for no
stIon at law to recover damages would bO nde-
qus.e, furif tho Injury were admitted, the dun
tgtI could nut be estimated or computed. The
bill would be for specific performance, and, hay-
i1eju5isdcsIan 10 that degree, court would
re- itAt complete Justice was done. More thnn
1hst, the complainant could not maintain any
EtEon at Inv; for the Directors OF tho Gas Com.
ppg bail refused to bring suit Tor damages, and
vete about to suffer waste Of the property Of
The Company, mud sucls u tlltn[nution III would
destroy Or greatly reduce tho valuc' oE COM
palnants stock aud CAUSE loss of dividends.
Mr Goudy was succeeded by
ltN. FHosT,
mbehalt Of the city, who specially devoted his
argument to the question OF tile Jurisdiction Of
III Court. 1Ip clnime,l there was no case made
tafsn Injunction, but that the complainant's
rruedy was ut law. Ills entire ease rcsaol on
thtltli contract, and tho wcil.cstabllshtd rule
oIIaw Was that when there was complete
teae4y at law the injured party could not sue
intqulty nor claim the bcneht OF tho extraor-
dtnaty writ Of Injunction. A municipal corpo-