Case Name: Joseph Kittinger, Respondent, v. The Buffalo Traction Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Edgar B. Jewett, as Mayor of the City of Buffalo, and The City of Buffalo
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-02
Citations: 25 A.D. 329
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Kittinger, Respondent, v. The Buffalo Traction Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Edgar B. Jewett, as Mayor of the City of Buffalo, and The City of Buffalo.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 329–339

Head Matter:
Joseph Kittinger, Respondent, v. The Buffalo Traction Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Edgar B. Jewett, as Mayor of the City of Buffalo, and The City of Buffalo.
Taxpayer’s action to restrain ihe building of a street railroad — a complaint setting forth a resolution of a common council corruptly passed to the injury of ihe property of the city and confirmed by an act of ihe Legislature — it does not state a cause of action.
The complaint in an action brought by a taxpayer of the city of Buffalo against the city, its mayor and the Buffalo Traction Company, a corporation organized for the purpose of building and operating upon the streets of the city of Buffalo an electric street surface railroad exceeding sixty-four miles in length, alleged that, notwithstanding the refusal of the Board of Bailroad Commissioners to grant the railroad corporation's application for a certificate that public convenience and necessity required the construction of its road, the common council of the city had “wrongfully, willfully and corruptly, in violation of their official duties to the said city and its taxpayers, and in waste of the property, funds, effects and estate of the said city, solely in order to favor the said defendant railway company,” adopted a resolution granting the consent of the ■city to the construction of the railroad, which was subsequently approved by the mayor, although he knew that the same was unfavorable to the interests of the city, and that if it were valid it “ would result in the waste of the property, funds, effects and estate of the said city.” The complaint also alleged that such consent was pretended to be validated and confirmed by chapter 649 of the Laws of 1896, and demanded as relief that the resolution and the act of the Legislature be adjudged null and void, and that the railroad company be enjoined from exercising any of the privileges purported to have been conferred by said act or resolution, and that the city itself and the mayor be enjoined from doing, or permitting to be done, any act in furtherance thereof.
Held, upon the hearing of a demurrer interposed to the complaint, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient "to constitute a cause of action.
Ward, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, The Buffalo Traction Company, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on. the 15th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Erie Special Term overruling the said defendant’s demurrer to the amended ' complaint on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, "and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office-on the loth day of March, 1897, directing the entry of said judgment.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen and a resident of the city of • Buffalo, and owns real estate in that .city, “and that his assessment for taxes upon said real estate amounts to more than one-thousand dollars, arid that he has been assessed and paid taxes upon said assessment within one year, previous to the commencement, of this action.” He also alleges that the legislative power of the city of Buffalo is vested in a common council which consists of the board of councilmen and the board of aldermen.
The complaint also alleges, viz. : “ The defendant, the Buffalo-Traction Company, is a domestic street surface railroad corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Hew York, *■ * * and was organized for the purpose of building a street surface railroad, exceeding sixty-four miles in length, in and through various streets, -avenues and public places in the city of Buffalo, Hew York, named in its articles of association, and of operating the said railroad by means of elecricity as a motive power.”
The. complaint also alleges that the Buffalo Traction Company “ made ajoplication to the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of Hew York for its certificate that public convenience and a necessity require the construction of the railroad as proposed in the, articles of association of said company; ” and that the commis^ sioners “ found, decided and adjudged that public necessity and con venience did not require the construction of the railroad proposed in the articles of association of the said Buffalo Traction Company.”
The complaint alleges that on the 23d of December, 1895, the board of aldermen adopted a resolution “ purporting to grant permission to the said Buffalo Traction Company to build and operate its railroad in the various streets of the city of Buffalo set forth in its said application, with one or two exceptions, and to erect and maintain the necessary trolley poles for the operation of said railroad by electricity, subject to certain terms and conditions in said resolution particularly specified.”
The complaint also alleges “ That subsequently,* at a special meeting of the board of councilmen of the city of Buffalo on the 24th day of December, 1895, the resolution last above mentioned, purporting to grant permission to the said defendant, the Buffalo Traction Company, to build and operate its railroad in the various streets in the city of Buffalo, and set forth in its said application, and as adopted by the said board of aldermen, was approved and adopted by said board of councilmen.”
The complaint also alleges “ That the common council of the said city of Buffalo, through its board of aldermen and board of councilmen, as aforesaid, voted to give permission and consent to the defendant railway company to construct, maintain and operate said street surface railway in the said streets and avenues and public places of the said city, wrongfully, willfully and corruptly, in violation of their official duties to the said city and its taxpayers, and in waste of the property, funds, effects and estate of the said city, solely in order to favor the said defendant railway conqDany; * "* * and that they acted with undue haste and improvidence, and in reckless disregard of all proper safeguards and of the city’s interests.”
It is also averred that on the 6th of January, 1896, “ the said mayor of the city of Buffalo attempted to approve the said resolution or pretended consent to the Buffalo Traction Company, which was adopted by the said board of aldermen on the 23d day of December, 1895, and approved and adopted by the said board of councilmen on the 24th day of December, 1895, as aforesaid, and he affixed his signature thereto as mayor of the city of Buffalo.”
It is averred that, at the time the mayor affixed his approval to the resolution, he “ knew that the same was unfavorable to the said city and to its interests, and knew that if the same should be held to be valid and legal in the form in which it then was, without the amendments previously recommended by himself or any other amendments, would result in the waste of the property, funds, effects and estate of the said city.”
The complaint alleges the passage by the Legislature of chapter 649 of the Laws of 1896, and that the act purports *‘to confer upon the said Buffalo Traction Company the consent of the Legislature, of ■ the State to the construction of the said railroad and to substitute the said legislative consent for the consent of the local authorities aforesaid, and purports and pretends to validate and confirm the consent of the local authorities to said proposed railroad lines 'if' 7É- -X
In the prayer of the complaint it is asked that the- resolution purporting to have been adopted by the common council on the 23d and 24th days of December, 1895, and to have been approved by the mayor on the 6th day of January, 1896, be declared irregular, illegal, unauthorized, null and void; and “ for judgment declaring the said act of the Legislature-to be unconstitutional, null and void, and. prohibiting and enjoining the 'defendant, the Buffalo Traction Company, from in any manner exercising any of the powers or privileges purporting to have been conveyed by said pretended resolution or consent,.or by said act of the Legislature; and specifically prohibiting and enjoining the said defendant company from entering upon any of the streets, avenues or public places in said pretended resolution or consent set forth, and from making any excavations therein, and from erecting any poles and from stringing any wires therein, and from doing any act in any manner connected with or under said pretended grant or resolution aforesaid; and also enjoining the defendant Edgar B. Jewett, as mayor, and the defendant, the city of Buffalo, from doing or permitting any act to be done in furtherance of said pretended grant, or from consenting to, or in any manner aiding the said Buffalo Traction Company in doing any act under color of the said resolution or consent,, or said law.”
The Special. Term found and decided “ that the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action, and the defendant’s demurrer should be overruled * *
The Buffalo Traction Company appeals to this court from the interlocutory judgment entered on the 15th of March, 1897.
J. II. Metcalf \ for the appellant. •
Ansley Wilcox and Frank C. Ferguson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.:
Plaintiff as a taxpayer seeks to maintain the action and by means thereof to prevent waste of the property of the city of Buffalo.
In Adamson v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co. (89 Hun, 261) it was held " A city has no power to alienate or appropriate the city streets and has no property rights therein,, and the provision of the statute authorizing an action to prevent a waste of "the estate and other property of a municipality refers to property- owned by the city and within its power of disposition." In that case it was held that the legislation which authorizes a taxpayer to maintain an action to prevent waste was not intended to enable á taxpayer to maintain an action " against the members of the common council in a city, and the administrative officers thereof, for the purpose of restraining officials acting within the limits and scope of their powers and discretion; " and reference was made in the opinion to Ziegler v. Chapin (126 N. Y. 342) where it was said: "We have quite recently declined to become arbitrators between taxpayers and their municipal officers in every instance of disagreeing opinions or conflicting judgments, and have decided that, jurisdiction in the officials existing, the courts can interfere in actions like that before us only where some fraud or collusion or bad faith is alleged and proved."
In Potter v. Collis (19 App. Div. 392) it was held, viz.: " The power of the Legislature, unless restricted by the Constitution, is absolute over the property held by a municipal corporation for public use, and it may grant to a railroad company the use of its streets." And it was further held that, in an action authorized to be brought by a taxpayer, "it must appear that the act complained of, or which the taxpayer seeks to restrain, is an illegal official act, or the action must be one to prevent waste or injury to, or to make good, property, funds or estate of the municipal corporation." And it was further held in that case, viz.: " The fact that an applicant to a city commissioner of public works for a permit to. excavate streets and avenues in order to change the motive power of a railroad, also needs a permit from the board of electrical control, does not make illegal the act of the city commissioner of public works in granting the permit." In that case the taxpayer's, application for an injunction was denied, and the right of a taxpayer to maintain the action upon the facts of that case was denied.
In Kellinger v. Forty-second Street, etc., R. R. Co. (50 N. Y. 209), Churoh, Ch. J., in referring to the decision, of People v. Kerr (27 id. 188), says that it was held "that legislative authority to construct a railroad on the surface of the streets without a change-of grade was a legitimate exercise of the power of regulating public rights for public uses, and that the city was not entitled to compensation-, because it had as a corporation no property which was appropriated."
We are of the.opinion that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to warrant a taxpayer. to maintain the action for the relief .sought- in the complaint in this action. We must, therefore,, reverse the interlocutory judgment and sustain the demurrer to the •complaint.
All concurred, except Ward, J., dissenting.