Majority
p. 510John C. Miller, Resp’t, v. City of Amsterdam, App’lt. Mary C. Smith, Resp’t, v. City of Amsterdam, App’lt. (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department, Filed May 8, 1894.)
Headnote
Municipal corporation—Streets—Assessment.A street assessment is void, where the petition is not signed by the owners of a majority of the lineal frontage of the street.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in each case.
Edviard P. White, for app’lt; Westbrook & Borst (H. V. Borst, of counsel), for resp’ts.
I have looked o.ver these cases, and it seems tome that it is unnecessary to write an opinion. The conclusion of the referee that a majority of the taxpayers on the street did not sign the petition seems sustained by the evidence, and, in the absence of the signatures of such majority, the defendant’s trustees had no power to act. I do not think that defendant’s trustees could obtain jurisdiction by an erroneous finding of a fact necessary to confer jurisdiction. See Jex v. Mayor, 103 N. Y. 536 -539 ; 3 St. Rep. 657 ; Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 N. Y. 532 ; Lathrop v. City of Buffalo, 3 Abb. Dec. 30 ; Tingue v. Village of Port Chester, 101 N. Y. 294 ; 1 St. Rep. 9 . All concur.
Cases cited
- Jex v. Mayor, Aldermen & Commonalty 103 N. Y. 536 p. 510
- Cagwin v. Town of Hancock 84 N. Y. 532 p. 510
- Tingue v. Village of Port Chester 101 N. Y. 294 p. 510