Case Name: Alfred Lawrence et al., Respondents, v. Nicholas H. Freeland et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 5 Silv. Sup. 492
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alfred Lawrence et al., Respondents, v. Nicholas H. Freeland et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
Alfred Lawrence et al., Respondents, v. Nicholas H. Freeland et al.
Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,
February 10, 1890.
Villages. Water supply•—The board of water commissioners, under chap. 181 of 1815 and chap. 211 of 1885, is the sole arbiter as to the source from which to procure the water, and it is not required to submit this question to the taxpayers.
Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.
Action to enjoin defendants, who are the board of water commissioners of the village of Tarry town, from building the water-works in certain lands near the village.
The former commissioners at first decided to locate the works on the Pocantico river, and submitted to the taxpayers the question whether they would bond the village for $100,-000 for that purpose, but the scheme was defeated by an injunction obtained by the Pocantico Water Works Co. These defendants were afterwards elected and determined upon the location in question.
Plaintiffs claim that the location is undesirable, and that the defendants are acting in violation of law, in not having ascertained the probable cost and submitted to the taxpayers the question of appropriating the taxes for that purpose.
E. T. Lovatt, for appellants.
James S. Millard and Henry C. Criffin, for respondents.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The defendants in this case are sued because their conduct as water commissioners did not suit the plaintiffs in their selection of a source of supply from which to get water for the village of Tarrytown. The authority to do the work complained of is found in chap. 181 of the Laws of 1875, and chap. 211 of the Laws of 1885, amending the first act. The acts named confer upon the said water commissioners the power to procure, by purchase or condemnation, a source of supply, and they are not required, by either of said acts, to submit to the taxpayers the question as to from what source they should procure the water. The board are the sole arbiters of this question, and they decided to purchase the Brown & Storms or East View property, so-called, and have purchased the same and established the water-works. The water commissioners acted entirely within the law, and that their judgment does not suit the plaintiffs does not make the conduct illegal.
The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.