Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest Hill et al., Appellants, v. Allan J. Williams, as District Superintendent of Schools of Putnam County, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-07-07
Citations: 229 N.Y. 595
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest Hill et al., Appellants, v. Allan J. Williams, as District Superintendent of Schools of Putnam County, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 229
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest Hill et al., Appellants, v. Allan J. Williams, as District Superintendent of Schools of Putnam County, et al., Respondents.
Schools — apportionment by district superintendent, among several school districts together comprising former school unit, of payment of bonds issued by said unit.
People ex rel. Hill v. Williams, 190 App. Div. 534, affirmed.
(Argued June 3, 1920;
decided July 7, 1920.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 23, 1920, which confirmed, on certiorari, a deter mination of the district superintendent of schools of Putnam comity, whereby such superintendent apportioned the payment of bonds issued for the cost of a new high school building among various school districts embraced in a former school unit, formed under and by virtue of article 11-A of the Education Law, commonly known as the .Township School Law, being chapter 328 of the Laws of 1917. While the building was in course of construction, said School Law was repealed by chapter 199 of the Laws of 1918, and the school districts as they formerly existed were restored. By section 7 of said repealing statute it was provided 'that “ Where bonds or other evidences of indebtedness have been issued or contracts made by such board for any lawful purpose with re'spect to the schools of the town generally, the obligation thus created shall be apportioned among the school districts in proportion to the benefits received or provided for. Such apportionment shall be made by the district superintendent after examining the facts at a public hearing.” The Appellate Division held that the action of the district superintendent of schools in apportioning the debt among the several districts was authorized.
Clifford Couch and Peter A. Anderson for appellants.
Clayton Ryder for respondents.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.