Case Name: Charles Kernitz, App'lt, v. Long Island City, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-12-10
Citations: 20 N.Y. St. Rep. 781
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Kernitz, App’lt, v. Long Island City, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 20
Pages: 781–783

Head Matter:
Charles Kernitz, App’lt, v. Long Island City, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second, Department,
Filed December 10, 1888.)
1. Municipal corporations — One dealing with chargeable with NOTICE OF LIMITATION OF POWERS.
One who deals with officers oí a municipal corporation is chargeable with notice of all limitations upon their powers by general laws.
'2. Same—Power of treasurer as to advertisement of notices—Laws 1886, chap. 656, § 3.
Where the statute required certain notices to taxpayers to be published by the treasurer of the city in two newspapers, one of which shall be the official newspaper of the city, if there be one, the treasurer is authorized to select both papers where no official paper has been designated.
3. Same—Publication in german—Judicial notice.
As the treasurer was at liberty to select such newspapers as he deemed proper, he might select one printed in the German language, as the court will take judicial notice of the fact that many Germans reside in th& city.
4. Same—Power oe common council.
By the revised charter of Long Island City (Laws 1871, chapter 461), .the treasuer was required to publish a financial statement annually. Held, that the common council could not contract for the publication of such a statement monthly at the city’s expense.
Appeal from a judgment entered in the Queens county court.
The action was brought to recover for the publiction of certain notices.
Mathew Marx, for app’lt; Walter J. Foster, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
The plaintiff sued to recover for publishing certain notices and reports for the defendant, and the defense is that the officers of the corporation had no authority to contract for the services, or audit the bills.
By the revised charter of the defendant, chapter 461 of the Laws of 1871, the treasurer is required to "exhibit to-the common council at least fifteen days before the annual election in each year a full account of all receipts and exrpenditures after the date of his annual report, etc., and such report shall be printed and published in all the newspapers published in said city and in such other manner as the council may direct."
This act refers specifically to one yearly report and no> other, and the common council had no authority to ordain that the treasurer should make and publish a monthly report, and the resolution to that effect passed October 6, 1885, neither imposed any liability upon the city nor authorized-the plaintiff to publish such reports.
Ro principle is better settled than that one who deals with officers of a municipal corporation is chargeable- with notice of all limitations upon their powers imposed by general laws.
All the items, therefore, except the publication of notices to the tax-payers were properly disallowed. These items, wé think, should have been allowed under the authority of chapter 656, section 3, of the Laws of 1886. That statute requires that one at least of the two newspapers designated shall be an official newspaper of said city, "if there be one."
It appears none had been designated, and therefore the treasurer had a right to select the plaintiff's paper as one in which to publish such notices.
It is objected that the paper was printed in the German language, but we must take notice that a large number of •Germans reside in Long Island City, and that newspapers .in that language are published there. A matter of such public notoriety requires no proof.
It is also to be observed that such notices as were provided for in that statute were intended to reach all classes of taxpayers, and that the intent thus to notify all classses could be better attained by having one publication at least in that language.
But a conclusive answer to the objection is that the matter of the selection of the newspapers was left to the treasurer and he selected the plaintiff's paper.
The treasurer was bound to give the best notice to carry out the intent of the law and we do not-think there was any restriction that both papers should be printed in the English language. The proceeding was not one regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.
In looking at the charter we find several provisions which require notices to be published in all the newspapers printed in the city, such as the assessor's notices to review taxes' and the notice for raising money by taxation for special purposes, so that where it is important that the notice shall reach all classes, all the newspapers are designated in the statute, thus including those not printed in the English language. We must assume that the legislature took notice of the fact of foreign born citizens being residents of Long Island City and of the publication of German newspapers therein, and intended that such notices should reach them in a language they understood.
However this may be, the legislature plainly delegated the discretion to the treasurer to designate the newspapers in which to print the notices referred to.
The two items, therefore, for these notices amounting to $47.25 and interest, should have been allowed.
There being no disputed question of fact, judgment should be reversed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff for the above amount, with costs for this appeal.
Dykman, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., dissenting.