Majority
Headnote
Water commissioners—Salary of—Schenectady (city of)—Laws 1883, chap. 330.On the 27th day of April, 1883, an act was passed by the legislature entitled “an act to supply the city of Schenectady with water.” The first section of such statute provides for the appointment of three water commissioners, and prescribes the duration of their term of office.
The second section contains the following provision: “ The said water commissioners, for the first year after the commencement of the construction of waterworks, as hereinafter prescribed, shall each receive such salary as the common council shall fix and determine, which shall not exceed $500, and shall be fixed before any appointment of commissioners shall be made. After such first year the said commissioners shall not be entitled to receive any compensation for their services, but such expenses as they shall incur in the discharge of their duties, which the said common council shall deem reasonable and necessary, shall be paid to them. Pursuant to such statute the plaintiff E. Nott Schermerhorn, J Andrew Barhydt and Peter Van
The trial court has found the facts, as stated in the complaint, except the allegation of indebtedness and the amount, thereof, and has also found the facts as stated in the-answer. There is really no dispute in regard to the material facts, and the determination of the case upon this-appeal, must depend upon the construction which shall be given to .the statute in question, in regard to the right of the commissioners, to the salary claimed by them under such statute. The statute declares the purpose for which it was enacted, viz.: “To supply the city of Schenectady with water.” It did not prescribe the particular method by which .such result should be attained, but left that to the discretion of the commissioners, subject to the approval of the common council. The fourth section of the statute prescribes the duties of such commissioners as follows, viz.;. “ Section four. It shall be the duty of said water commissioners to examine and consider all matters relative to supplying the city of Schenectady with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome water. And for that purpose they shall have power to employ engineers, surveyors, and such other persons as they shall deem necessary for that purpose. And they shall adopt such plans as in their judgment shall be most .expedient for procuring such supply of water,, which shall embrace the proper distributing of main pipes, for a supply to all the streets in said city, so far as said' commissioners shall deem the same expedient; and also the furnishing and placing, such number of street hydrants, for supplying water for the extinguishment of fires, as they shall deem advisable; and they shall make an estimate of the probable amount necessary to carry such plans into effect. Such plans may also embrace the purchase of any water-works, with the pipes, machinery and appliances, and other property, or any part thereof, now in use and operation for supplying water in the city.” It is apparent that-the legislature intended to confer upon the commissioners a. broad discretion, in regard to the selection of a plan which would be .most likely to accomplish the purpose contemplated, viz.: Supplying the city with good and wholesome water. The following statements in the complaint,, and which have been found as facts, by the trial court,, show the nature of the work required of the commissioners, and the manner they performed the same.
“VII. That immediately after the appointment and
That on the 29th day of September, 1885, the said water commissioners made to the said common council a report of the plan so adopted by the said water commissioners, which report contained a full and distinct description of the plan .so adopted by them, and their estimate of the expense
VIII. That since the purchase of the said water works of the Schenectady Water Company, as above set forth, the said water commissioners have had the sole and exclusive-charge and management thereof, and have, from time to time, enlarged and repaired the same by purchase and erection of a new pump, boiler and appurtenances, by the extension of the main or distributing pipes, into streets or parts of the city not supplied with water at the time of the purchase of the said property, and by the erection of additional hydrants for fire purposes.
The proper performance of the duties which devolved upon the water commissioners, under such statute, evidently required, on their part, careful investigation, the exercise of sound judgment, and the expenditure of much time. The service thus required of them obviously exceeded that which would be required of water commissioners, after the contemplated system should be completed and in operation, and there is a seeming propriety and justice in the provision of the statute, by which compensation, by salary, could be made to those commissioners for the services which they were called upon to perform. The facts show that such commissioners not only recommended the-purchase of the system of water-works which were in operation when the statute was passed, but greatly enlarged the same, by which the water has become more generally distributed in the city, and better accommodates its inhabit
In Smith’s Commentaries (§ 701, p. 820) the rule of construction in this respect is stated as follows: “That whenever the intention of the maker of a statute can be discovered, it ought to be followed with reason and discretion in the construction of the statute, although such construction seems contrary to the letter of the statute. A thing that is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it be withih the intention of the makers.”
In The People v. The Utica Insurance Company ( 15 Johns., 380 ) the rule is thus stated: “Such construction ought to be put upon a statute as may best answer the intention which the makers had in view. And this intention is sometimes to be collected from the cause or necessity of making the statute and sometimes from other circumstances; and whenever such intention can be discovered, it ought to be followed with reason and discretion in the con
Applying such rule of construction to the facts of this-case, we are convinced that the water commissioners were entitled to the salary provided by the statute, and that the-plaintiff established a cause of action against the defendant, which entitled him to a judgment in the action.
There should be a reversal of the judgment and a new-trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Learned, P. J., and Landon, J., concur.