Court Opinion

ID: 3586141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:36:03.695175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:49.832099
License: Public Domain

The defendant now concedes the bonds in question to have been issued under a judgment void for want of jurisdiction in the court which rendered it, and claims moreover that they are void for matters appearing upon their face. To this extent, then, there is acquiescence in the decision of the learned referee, but the appellant contends that for these very reasons there is no ground for equitable interference, and this might be so if the question turned upon the exercise of the general jurisdiction of a court of equity, (Story Eq. Jur., § 700; Heywood v. City ofBuffalo, 14 N.Y., 542), but it does not. The plaintiffs are tax-payers and the defendants, Parker, Briggs and White, claim to be commissioners of the town of Sheldon under color of the judgment above referred to and an appointment by virtue of proceedings under the act permitting "municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads." (Laws of 1869, chap. 907.) They have issued to the appellant bonds purporting to be the obligations of the town and which, if valid, would be a charge "upon the real and personal estate within the limits thereof, to be collected and paid in like manner as other debts, obligations and charges against the" town. *Page 174 
(Chap. 907, supra, § 6; Laws of 1870, chap. 300, § 1.) The bonds and the coupons attached could therefore be collected by assessment, and no action would be necessary to enforce their payment. This action is predicated upon the provisions of the act entitled: "An act for the protection of tax-payers against the frauds, embezzlements and wrongful acts of public officers and agents." (Laws of 1872, vol. 1, chap. 161.) The intent and scope of this statute was, soon after its enactment, carefully considered by this court, in Ayers v. Lawrence
(59 N.Y., 192), and it is very clear that the plaintiffs have brought their case within its provisions as they were then construed. The appellants are the holders of the bonds and coupons illegally issued, and to apply the money already raised to their payment or permit the bonds themselves to remain an apparent pledge of the credit of the town, and a lien upon the property of the tax-payer, would sanction the very waste and injury which the statute was designed to prevent. The action was, therefore, well brought. The commissioners do not appeal, and as the railroad company has no interest in the litigation save as holder of bonds pronounced invalid, it can have no concern as to the disposition of the money now in the hands of the collector.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 175