Case Name: John Mingay et al., Appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-06-01
Citations: 1 Silv. Ct. App. 132
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Mingay et al., Appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 132–132

Head Matter:
John Mingay et al., Appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals,
June 1, 1886.
Municipal corporations.—The restrictions contained in the charter of the village of Saratoga Springs (section 61 of chap. 220, Laws of 1866), against the expenditure of money and the creation of a village debt, were repealed, as to the water commissioners of the village, by chap. 557, Laws of 1868, and chap. 763, Laws of 1872.
Action brought by certain taxpayers of the village of Saratoga Springs, to restrain the water commissioners of said village, from carrying out a contract with the Holley Manufacturing Company.
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court, affirming judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Matthew Male and John R. Putnam, for appellants, James Mingay and others.
Esek Cowen and C. S. Lester, for respondents, Henry B. Hanson and others.

Opinion:
Earl, J.
The restrictions contained in the charter of the village of Saratoga Springs (Laws 1866, chap. 220, § 61), against the expenditure of money and the creation of a village debt were repealed, as to the water commissioners of the village, by subsequent legislation (Laws 1868, chap. 557; Laws 1872, chap. 763), and hence the debt and expenditure complained of in this case were legal, and unassailable by the plaintiffs.
The reasons for our conclusions are so well stated in the opinions delivered at special and general terms, in the case of People v. Leary (17 Wkly. Dig. 116), that it is not required that they should be restated here.
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
All concur.