Case Name: THE MERCHANTS' NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-12
Citations: 10 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 156
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE MERCHANTS’ NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 10
Pages: 156–164

Head Matter:
THE MERCHANTS’ NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
Board of supervisors — liability of for tas illegally collected—State too:—board of sup&i-visors do not act as representatives of State in collecting—: Chap. 108, Laws of 1863 — construction of.
The predecessor of the plaintiff was compelled to pay $29,503.14, the tax imposed for the year 1862, upon $1,701,000 of its capital, which was then invested in United States securities. Of this amount $16,231.38 were for the purposes of the city of New York, $7,492.71 for the county, and $6,788.05 for the State tax. The imposition of the tax having been declared illegal, this action was brought to recover the amount so paid. Held (1), that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of the county and State tax; the State tax is a debt imposed upon the county at large, and the board of supervisors do not act as the representatives of the State in collecting it; (2), that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount of the tax paid for the purposes of the City, for the reasons that the county had never received such amount, and that it has never been authorized to raise and pay the same to the plaintiff.
Chapter 108, Laws of 1868, authorized the board of supervisors to raise such additional amount of money as might be necessary to supply any deficiency in the product of the taxes of the year before, as such taxes were based upon erroneous assessments; but it did not authorize them to raise money to reimburse what might thereafter.be collected from the city on account of the tax being erroneous, nor to enable the county to pay claimants what they otherwise might recover from the city. (Brady, J., dissenting.)
Motion for a new.trial, on exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the General Term.
The predecessor of the plaintiff, the Merchants’ Bank of the city of New York, was obliged to pay $29,502.14, that being the amount of the tax imposed for the year 1862, upon $1,701,000 of its capital, which was invested in government securities, and therefore not subject to taxation.' The impost was declared to be illegal by the Court of Appeals. It appeared that $15,221.38 were levied and collected for the purposes of the city, $7,492.71 for the county, and $6,788.05 to pay the tax due to the State. Upon the trial the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover against the defendant the portions respectively collected for county and State purposes only, and a verdict was accordingly rendered.
John E. JBurrill, for the plaintiff.
E. Delafield Smith, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Daniels, J.:
The conclusion maintained by Mr. Justice Bradt, that the plaintiff was lawfully allowed to recover a verdict for the amount of the tax imposed and collected for State and county purposes, is fully sustained by the reasons he has given in support of it. But those given for holding the county liable for the amount of the tax received by the city, are not as controlling. It is conceded that no such liability can be maintained, unless it has been created by chapter 108 of the Laws of 1863. And that concession was necessarily required, in consequence of the decision made in the .case of the Bank of the Commonwealth v. Mayor, etc., of New York. Whether the county can be properly rendered liable for the amount of the tax received by the city, must therefore depend entirely upon the provision made by that act. That does not expressly create the liability. It merely provides that the said supervisors " are also hereby authorized and required to order and cause to be raised, in the manner aforesaid, such additional amount of money as may be necessary to supply any deficiency in the product of the taxes of and for the year 1862, which were authorized to be levied and raised for city and county purposes, and which were based upon assessments which the Supreme Court of the United States have adjudged and declared to be in part erroneous." The amount authorized to be imposed and raised by this enactment, is by its terms expressly limited to any deficiency in the product of the taxes of the year 1862, in consequence of the adjudication that the taxes were in part erroneous. The object was to supply the county with the sum which on that account, was made deficient. The law so describes and declares it. It was not provided by this act, that the county should impose and collect additional taxes for the purpose of reimbursing what possibly might afterward be collected from the city on account of the tax being in part erroneous, nor for the purpose of enabling the county to pay claimants what they otherwise might possibly have the right to recover from the city. The theory of the act is, that some of the taxes had proved incapable of collection because they had been declared unlawful by the decision which was mentioned. In that way a deficiency in the county funds was assumed to have been created, and that, it was the object of the act to provide means for supplying. It was not to create a fund for the payment of demands which might afterward be made because taxes actually received had been improperly, imposed, but only to supply any deficiency in the product of the taxes of the year 1862. It did not provide the county authorities with the means of paying subsequent demands for what the city had received in the orderly course of other statutory provisions. And it is not to be supposed, and it certainly was not shown, that any amount was ever levied or collected for that object. For that reason the county has not now, and never has had, in its treasury, that part of the tax collected of the plaintiff and paid to the city, nor any sum, whatever, for its reim-. bursement. The action, in substance and effect, is to recover money had and received by the defendant, belonging to the plaintiff. It never did receive that paid to the city, and never has been authorized to receive any for the purpose of paying that amount to the plaintiff.
The motion for a new trial should be denied, and judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict, with costs.
Davis, P. J.:
I concur in the opinion of Justice Daniels. It was not shown, that the money authorized to be collected under the act of 1863, was raised and came into the hands of the supervisors.
43 N. Y., 184.
Laws of 1863, chap. 108.