Hyperlawhypertext legal database Sillcocks v. Mayor of New York 18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 431

← Cases

Sillcocks v. Mayor of New York

18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 431 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Judges Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Delivered by *432 Beady, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 431
WARREN S. SILLCOCKS and JOSHUA S. COOLEY, Appellants, v. THE MAYOR, Etc., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Headnote

Common emnoil of New York — gold badges for membws— Contract for, ultra m'es.
The common council of the city of New York had, in 1870, no authority, either express or implied, to direct the purchase of gold badges for the members of the common council as insignia of office.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, entered upon tbe dismissal of tbe complaint at tbe Circuit.
Tbe action was brought to recover tbe price of forty-nine gold medals, at $100 apiece, furnished to tbe members of tbe common council of tbe city of New York in 1870, in pursuance of a resolution of tbe common council directing their purchase by tbe clerk. Tbe complaint was dismissed at tbe Circuit upon tbe ground that no contract therefor bad been awarded upon proposals invited by public advertisement, and no previous appropriation covering, tbe expense of tbe purchase was proved.
Joh/n H. Strahan, for tbe appellants.
D. J. Dean, for the respondent.

Notwithstanding the able argument of the appellant’s counsel, we think the judgment entered herein must be affirmed. The powers possessed by the common council are those conferred by charters and special laws, and expressed or implied. It does not appear that a gold badge was necessary in order to enable a member of the common council to perform his official functions, and the expense incurred for that purpose was ultra vires, and, therefore, entailed no liability upon the defendants.

No provision having been made by express enactment, for such a purchase, its necessity alone could warrant a resolution to procure it.

The contracts of a municipal corporation for an object not essentially necessary, and not comprehended by, nor within the power of the municipality itself to make, cannot be enforced. (Hodges v. Buffalo, 2 Den., 110 ; Gamble v. Watkins 14 N. Y. S. C. R., 448.)

If it were otherwise, then personal expenditures under the guise of corporate necessities could be made for a variety of purposes, having in fact no relation to the municipality or the discharge of the duty of any of its members.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.