The New York herald., 1877-09-04
THE COURTS.
Dissolving the Injunction Prohibit
ing Sale Of Ferry Leases.
BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT
A Wifes Divorce Obtained While Her
Husband was in California.

temporary Injunction, granted q few days since,
preventing the city from selling the franchises OF
various ferries, the particulars of which have been
gwen In the HERALD yesterday dissolved by Judge
Van Brunt, SO that it Is probable unless other
obstacle is meantime thrown in the way, that the sale
will be made in accordance with tho original notice.
The complainant in the JamcsC. II ul. who.
taxpayer made the application for an Injunction
under the statute granting such privilege to tax
payer when there Is TO believe that the sale
will result in loss to the CITY, 1t was claimed
vn behalf OF the city that the brought
Tor the protection Of city other taxpayers but
vas Instituted ~ the instigaton and expense OF the
parties now using and enjoying the benefits OF tho
Terry franchises proposed to be sold Judge Van
Brunt gave bis decision yesterday tho case and his
opinion Is published In iull below
The plaintiff IN this action is resident of the city OF
New York ana taxpayer therein, and as such brings
This action pursuant 10 chapter lGl OF the laws OF 1872
10 prevent certain alleged work injury the prop
er!y OF the SAID CITY, the said work consisting in the
sale OF certain Jerry franchises, is alleged by the
plaintiff, IN manner contrary law 1t is claimed
upon the part OF the defendants, and virtually ad-
mitted by the plaintiff that this action is no. brought
Tor The protection Of the piant other taxpay
ers OF the city o New York but that II has been
sti.uted ut the insteaon and expense OF parties now
using and enjoying the benefits OF the Terry franchise
the sale OF which II Is sought to enjoin. In lact,
Of the counsel Tor the plaintiff upon tho argument of
this motion spoke of the Jerry companies whom lie
represented. One OF the first elements oi appilca-
on to court of equity is that the application
wrong, or TO prevent the nillctou OF substantial
lrjdry upon The plantl or the persons whom he may
be said 70 legally represent. In other words the bl
must oe hed IN good faith, anu the Court will not n
terrain bill where the equitable powers OF the Court
are used mere pretence To gve jurisdiction.
(Story's Equity Jurisprudence. sec ion a. But II
CLAIMED upon the part of the plaintiff that he being
taxpayer, the ACT ot 1872 him the absolute right
10 MAINTAIN this action. The provision OF IS,
that an action may DC prosecuted by taxpayer to
vent waste injury to tho property OF the corpora
iion; hence II Is apparent from The language OF the
statute that If such is not the object OF the ion
VIZ, TO prevent waste or injury TO the property OF
s0rporation-no power conferred upon the
Court to entertain the suit Tue evident intent
pf the act was to give u taxpayer standing IN
court for the protection of the interests OF tho
taxpayers OF municipal corporation, and
be construed TO authorize the maintenance Of ac-
ton which has Tor its object not the protection o tho
rights OF taxpayers, nor TO prevent waste injury
the property of the corporaton but the furtherance
Of the schemes OF parties who have right, either
legal or equitable, to claim the protection OF the
Court. IL Is app irent from the circumstances sur
rounding tins case that the paiutIH has not COM
menced the present action 10 protect his
taxpayer In the city OF New York. but that the real
parties IN interest the persons using the Jerry
franchises as above mentioned and, consequently, no
has no right TO call upon this Court Tor
oil It's equitable powers The motion to continue the
injunction must be denied, with costs, and the tempo
rary Injunction dissolved.