New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-12-01
i CANAL CASE DECIDED
SUPREME COURT DECISION IL Favor OF DESIsOS
BELDES cO.-TBE DECISION BELOW REyER5il
AND NEw TRIAL ORDERED.

A SUPREME COURT DECISION IL Favor OF DESIsoS,
BELDFS : cO-TBE DECISION BELOW REyERsI-D
AND NEw TRIAL ORDERrD.
ALBANY. Nov. 3O-rhe General Term
Of the sarreme Court, sitting at Albany. recently
rendered important decision in the welEsRown
o. The People against Denison Brlden Co. Tic
Judgment of The referees appointed by the Court
hs'ow reversed. the reference discharged and
trial granted. 10 abide the event. II VIII
ae remembered that this suit brought IN the name
OF the BY the direction Of Governor den in Au-
gust 1879, Tor the Of 4i7J9l with interest
January l. 1870 and coss, for alleged fraud Ia
contracts. made ~ 1869 for removing wall benches
and sra ghfel'ng the Ere Canal from Port Schuyler
TO the lower Mohawk acqueduei. The referred
la 1876 nv Of the Supreme Court Judges, 20 james
E1ost Charles rlppan and Isaac Lawson The rcierrcs
after proiracied hearing. reported December p, So
giving Judgment for the State for s3s7lO9. The de
PENDANTS then appealed 10 the General Term,
which has jus. decided IN their favor. II
the option OF tho Attorney either To
appeal to the Court of Appeals, commcnca new trial.
drop the where IL Is. The tr!a
Of this case and Others OF Ike nature ha cost the
100000. and thus far dollar has been recovered
From the decision Of Judge Learned sitting General
Term with Judgcs Bosrdnan and Book. the following
points taken:
II will thus be seel that the complaint i through
out based general allegations OF fraudulent
and corrupt practice by waien the de'enennis
OF the STATE TO make false vouchers ,nd on alleged
iraunen construction Of certain work. md upon alleged
and furnishing materials The report OF referees
does not mud that the defendants guilty OF any
Gates OF work were ever gwen II does not ind that
The defendant made any fslse statements es 70 any
Win any state officers In word the
part OF any person. aud silent To any mper-
fecsion in the work done b. the defendants;
aud far from examination Of
the case tter u no evdenco OF any fraud or imperfect
work. does the opinion OF the referees suggest.
tne argument Of tie plaintiffs Indicate anything Of the
There are three important Questions presented First
there be recovery under this complaint without
circumstances ne eeOVere PACK lr, has tnrre been
ratification ny the stae At the close the trsi she
def nGnts requested tne referees 70 rd among other
things hat the complaint described and cain right 10
upon cause OF action arising oul ~ tort and
arising on contract u can hhfHiy ne .ques-
toned that this complain IL based on ffand.
There "a bat general OF action. which
is that defendants under the color Of the contract
by Of frauds, devices. false pretences and
with state officers Obtained Sfl757I The rest or the
complaint except the conclusion. contains specinea
Ins;cr - fhat Tie .,ise vo1ctrrs and acacs were
procured by corrupt Influences. partly political T.
there any deub- tbat under sEch complaint the PLAIN
us were Al liberty to prove aciual fraud aud corrupt
combinations or mat on judgment IN their favor tho
execution might Issue against tho person On
me 9tner hand y Is ,Iu'i'y pan ma. no Proc, o.
rpndered n report for the PLAINTIFF ON the
and materials furnished by the defendants
ilffs. were done and furnished without authority
0! law, and therefore that the plaintiffs
paid Now this action o back money paid has
always been an ac.iOn OF an equitable nature, IL
and received to the use OF the plaintiff
1t was an et:on on implied contract growing
fund money which it ineqnitabie %
retain Il was not n any respect case based on fradd
tract The contract mas been distinctly held
ss holding a Sa' onr T STs TIE cd 5as gaf
not that the defencants procured the execution
DO net repudiate the contract. The complaint
IL that, under that contract. the defendants by
, ,ng Fr t5eae reasons rs we fhak thc ,ain, n
they utterly failed 70 prove any fT;nd. 49,
PASSING this question OF pleading can this money
s77. provided FOR removing wall benches. CON
siructlns slope, pavement md vertical walls, and
straishteniug the Erie Cana the eastern division.
No moneys WIRE 20 he expended or contract
the terms Of the contract for reinoy ne wall benches
entered into between the ssais and Denison TIE toa
amount paid was not 60 exceed the estimated amount Of
Alter the making OF the contract and under the
same assHmed. the defendants removed tbs
in It's place. instead Of only removing wall benches
and hey constructed much argcr anIolnS OF vertical
beer paid largely beg 0ut the original specified estimate
Assuming. then. for the present, that tle work
VA, beyOnd the Of the contract and that
was OF the authorized by the 1863
have facts That The defendants havr done
or the property Of State the State has received
and still retains the benefit Of the work: that
through tho State officers within whose general duty
the M liter came paid the work and
III the absence proof the contrary mat the work
Wa worth what was paiu for IT, and IL was
done in good faith II not thr peculiar privilege OF
the TO be dishonest AMI unjust. and II this
question between individuals IL wOuil that there
rpIlG 90
mad. This action 20 back money which has been
paid us, already stated, III AN eoutabt character