City of Elmira v. Seymour — 111 A.D. 199

Majority

p. 199

The City of Elmira, Plaintiff, v. Edmund Seymour and Robert A. Gunn, Defendants.

Third Department,

January 8, 1906.

Headnote

Constitutional, law — when local bill not unconstitutional in embracing subject not expressed in title.

Chapter 476 of the Laws of 1905, entitled “An act to authorize the city of Elmira to issue its bonds for the construction of a bridge or the reconstruí ting and repairing of an existing bridge across the Chemung river in the city of Elmira,” is not in violation of section 16 of article 3 of the State ’ Constitution in embracing rhore than one subject, although it authorizes the issue of bonds for said purposes.

In order to be constitutional it is not necessary that the title of a bill shall be the best that could- be selected, nor is it necessary to set forth in the title the various details of the object or purpose to be accomplished by the bill; it is sufficient if the title properly expresses the general purpose (rf the bill so as to apprise the public of the interests affected thereby.

Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

p. 200

The plaintiff is a municipal corporation organized. under special charter, viz., chapter 615 of the Laws of 1894, and the acts amendatory thereof.. -

On the 17th day of May, 1905, the Legislature, of this. State, passed chapter 476 of the laws of that year, entitled. “ An act to authorize the city of Elmira to issue its.bond's for the construction of a bridge or the: reconstructing and repairing of an existing bridge ácross the Chemung river in the city of Elmira.” Such act authorized and directed the common council of said city to issue, upon written demand of the board of commissioners therein provided for, the bonds of said city in a sum not exceeding $55,000,.the moneys arising therefrom to'be disbursed upon the orders of said board of commissioners. Commissioners were by such' act appointed, áfíd the constitution -of such board was. therein provided] for, and. the board was therein, authorized to expend th'e moneys realized from-the sale of such bonds to build or repair a bridge across the Chemung river in said city from Lake street to Pennsylvania avenue: Said board determined'to repair the bridge at such, site, and demanded of the common council that they issue the bonds of said city-in the sum of $55,000, as provided in said act. The common council. thereupoú directed the issuance and execution óf,'such bonds, and- further directed the city clerk to' advertise for bids for the purchase of the same. -"The - defendants, as copartners composing the firm of Edmund Seymour & Co., doing business in the city of New York, in response to such advertisement by the city clerk, on August- % 1905, submitted a proposal accompanied by a deposit of $1,500 as an evidence of good faith, in which they offered' to purchase said bonds, if they should be found in all respects legal-. Such bid was accepted by the plaintiff and thereafter said bonds were issued and tendered to,the defendants who refused to accept or pay for thesanae, on the sole ground that the said act authorizing tlieif issue is unconstitutional and void in that it is in conflict with section 16" of article 3 of the State- Constitution, and the bonds are, therefore, illegal. ' -

Richard H. Thurston, for the plaintiff.

William Morgan Lee, for the defendants.

The defendants in this proceeding having bid 106 for the $55,000 of bonds issued by the plaintiff under the act in question, and such bid having been accepted by the plaintiff, a contract arose between such parties; and the defendants are liable to forfeit the $1,500 put up by them as damages for a breach of such contract, provided they now refuse to proceed there with,, unless they are able to establish some good reason for such refusal.

The only ground that the defendants offer as'an excuse for such refusal is that the act under which the plaintiff claims to issue such bonds is in violation of section 16 of article 3 of the State Constitution, and such is the only question that, under this record, is presented for our decision..

Section 16 of article 3 of our State Constitution provides as follows : “bio private or local bill which may be passed by the Legislature shall embrace /more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” The title of the bill in question reads as follows: “ An act to authorize the city of x Elmira to issue its bonds for the construction of a bridge or the reconstructing and repairing' of an existing bridge across the Chemung river in the city of Elmira.”

The defendants claim that this act is violative of this provision of the Constitution, and that, therefore, the bonds are issued without authority.

It was some time ago agreed that the courts are unable to formulate any general rule that will solve all the cáses coming under this section. Each case seems to depend generally upon its own peculiar provisions. (Van Brunt v. Town of Flatbush, 128 N. Y. 50 , 54.) It is said in People ex rel. Burroughs v. Brinkerhoff ( 68 N. Y. 265 ) that whenever such an act and the title meet the purpose of the constitutional inhibition, the act is valid. And in People ex rel. Corscadden v. Howe ( 177 N. Y. 499 , 504) it is said that the object of the constitutional requirement was to “ ‘ advise the public in general, and members of the Legislature in particular, by the title of the bill what interests are likely to be affected by its becoming a law.’ * • TPq general rule to be deduced from them (viz., the many decisions on the subject) is that it is not necessary that the title of the bill should be the best that could be selected, nor is it necessary

p. 202

to set forth in the title the varibus details of the object or purpose to be accomplished by the bill; it is sufficient if the title fairly expresses the general purpose of the bill; but at the same time the title mustbe such as to reasonably apprise the public of the interests that are- or may be affected by the statute.”

It seems to me clear' that the act in question fully meets all the requirements here laid down. The purpose of the act is plain. It is suggested that there are two subjects contained in the act, the one to issue bonds and the other to authorize the building or repair of a bridge; and that hence being a local bill, it violates the Constitution. But there are not two independent subjects provided for in this act. Evidently but one subject is intended, and that is that the Lake street bridge is to be rebuilt or repaired and the expense thereof is tó be paid for by the issue of city bonds. And the title of the act will deceive no one.- A fair interpretation of such title manifestly -suggests the very purpose for which the act is intended; no one can be misled by it. Ho one would naturally suppose that bonds were to be issued for the building of a bridge and yet no bridge be built, and if it might fairly be supposed that the bridge was to be built the provisions for building it and methods for raising money on the bonds might fairly be expected to be found in the act. It all seems germane to the one act. and for this reason I conclude that the bonds are valid bonds and the contract of the parties hereto concerning them should be performed.

All concurred; Smith, J., not sitting.

Judgment for plaintiff as per opinion, with costs.

Cases cited

Van Brunt v. Town of Flatbush 128 N. Y. 50 N.Y. 1891-06-02 at 54 p. 200
People ex rel. Corscadden v. Howe 177 N. Y. 499 N.Y. 1904-02-23 at 504 p. 200