Case Name: James Mingay and others, appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson and others, respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-06-01
Citations: 2 N.Y. St. Rep. 60
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Mingay and others, appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson and others, respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 2
Pages: 60–61

Head Matter:
James Mingay and others, appellants, v. Henry B. Hanson and others, respondents.
(Court of Appeals,
Filed June 1, 1886.)
Municipal corporations—Villages—Saratoga Springs.
The restrictions contained in the charter of the village of Saratoga Springs (Laws of 1866, chap. 220, § 61), against the expenditure of money and the creation of a village debt, were repealed as to the water commissioners of the village by subsequent legislation.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 of 1868, chap. 577; Laws of 1873, chap. 763). The water commissioners now have authority to make the expenditures and create the debt complained of in this case, and such debt and expenditures are legal.
Appeal from general term of the supreme court, third department, affirming judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.
Matthew Hale 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Saratoga Springs (Laws 1866, chap. 220, § 61), against the expenditure of money and the creation of a village debt were repealed, as to the water commissioners of the village, by subsequent legislation (Laws 1868, chap. 557; Laws 1872, chap. 763), and hence the debt and expenditure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.