Case Name: Molloy et al. v. Board of Health of Town of Mamaroneck
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-07-02
Citations: 15 N.Y.S. 487
Docket Number: 
Parties: Molloy et al. v. Board of Health of Town of Mamaroneck.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 15
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
Molloy et al. v. Board of Health of Town of Mamaroneck.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 2, 1891.)
Municipal Cobpobations—Conteacts by Boabd of Health—Town Charses.
Plaintiffs contracted with the board of health of a town for the construction of a sewer. Held, that the expense thereof was a town charge, and that suit therefor would not lie against the board of health under Laws N. Y. 1885, c. 270, § 5, which provides that all expenses incurred by the several boards of health shall be charges on the town only, and collected in the same manner as other town charges. Pbatt, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court, Westchester county.
Action by William Y. Molloy and Frank W. Molloy against the board of health of the town of Mamaroneck to recover a balance due on a contract made between plaintiffs and defendant for the construction of a sewer. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Laws N. Y. 1885, c. 270, § 5, provides that “all expenses incurred by the several boards of health in tlie'execution and performance of their duties * * * shall be a charge only on their respective towns, and shall be audited, collected, and paid in the same manner as other town charges are audited, levied, collected, and paid.”
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
C. H. & J. A. Young, for appellants. Arthur T. Hoffman, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The plaintiffs performed work under a contract with the defendant. The expense was a town charge. Chapter 270, Laws 1885. The board of health has no place as a defendant. It is a town agency only. The claim must be presented to the town auditors for audit. People v. Barnes, 114 N. Y. 324, 20 N. E. Rep. 609, and 21 N. E. Rep. 739; People v. Board, 18 Barb. 567; Bell v. Town of Esopus, 49 Barb. 506. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.