lected upon the property delinquent in such district the next fiscal year, and which said amount or sum when collected shall be paid over to the said company or its assigns in the manner hereinbefore provided.
“ § 5. This act shall take effect immediately, and the clerk of this board is hereby required to file and publish this resolution as required by law, and the Queens County Water Company shall file in the office of the treasurer of Queens county and in the office of the town clerk of the town of Hempstead, a duplicate of the map referred to and accompanying and forming a part of the said petition.”
Immediately upon the passage of the foregoing resolution the relator accepted of its terms and conditions and for the compensation provided, forthwith began the performance of its service as required thereby.
On July 31, 1880, a contract was entered into in duplicate between Martin V. Wood, supervisor of the town of Hemp-stead, authorized by said resolution to act for and on behalf of the fire district duly established in the unincorporated village of Far Rockaway of the first part, and the relator of the second part, which was merely a reiteration of the terms and conditions of the foregoing resolution and in itself provided only for the minute details of the service.
The relator fully performed its service as contracted for, and in every respect lived up to and is now continuing to live up to every requirement on its part both of the resolution and the agreement.
On November 18, 1886, the board of supervisors by resolution reconsidered their resolution of July 28, 1886, and on the opinion of counsel stating that chap. 439 of the laws of 1885, did not authorize the board, to make or authorize to be made a contract with the water company, and that their powers were exhausted when the fire district was created, and said district authorized to procure a supply of water for fire purposes, declared, that part of the resolution of July 28, 1886, relating to the said contract to be null and void, and to have been made without proper legal jurisdiction on the part of the board, and the petition for the establishment of the fire district with the resolution as reconsidered was laid upon the table to await the further action of the inhabitants of the unincorporated village of Far Rockaway.
In due season thereafter the relator demanded that the board of supervisors should perform their duty under their resolution of July 28, 1886, in respect to the annual assessment levy and collection of the sum of $2,000 provided for the compensation of the relator. This was not done, and after fully performing its service for a year the relator instituted these proceedings in mandamus to compel the insertion in the next annual tax levy of the sum earned by it.
Frank Keck and R. V. W. DuBois, for the relator; John Fleming, for the board of supervisors.
The proceedings of the board of supervisors had in November, 1886, can have no effect upon the validity of the contract with the water company; if that contract was valid when executed, it could not be rescinded by the board of supervisors without the consent of the other party.
I am unable to agree with the view that the supervisors upon the presentation of the petition of the tax-payers had no power beyond the creation of the fire district, and that the question of contracting for a supply of water was after the district was created, to be submitted to the tax-payers.
The statute empowers the board of supervisors to establish the district and to authorize the procurement of a supply of water and to purchase apparatus to extinguish fires. All this is to be done upon the petition signed by more than one-half of the tax-payers of the district.
The board therefore, had, upon the presentation of the petition, the power to establish the district and also at the same time to authorize the contract for a supply of water upon the terms set forth in the petition. The petition contains the only expression of the will of the tax-payers called for by the statute.
But having authorized the contract, how was it to be executed? The clear will and intent of the statute is not to be defeated because in the district there is no proper officer authorized to sign for or represent the tax-payers. Here is. a small section of a town having no independent local government authorized to be set apart from the rest of the town for a particular purpose. They are substantially directed to act through the board of supervisors, and it is clearly to be implied that the supervisors were to sign the necessary contract as the representatives of the district and this power was substantially complied with by designating one of their members to sign the contract.
I think the objections made to the proceedings are without, merit. In this proceeding it must be assumed that the petition was signed by the requisite number of tax-payers. If it was desired to contest that point the remedy is by certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors.
The motion for a mandamus must be granted.