In re the Department of Public Works ex rel. Mayor of New York

Headnote

The words “ laying out,” in the title of an oat of the legislature, includes the opening of streets.

Appeal by the mayor, etc., of the city of New York, from' an order made herein confirming the report of the commissioners of estimate and assessment.

The appeal in this case rested upon the supposed unconstitutionality of the act, chapter 604 of 1874, under which the proceedings herein were taken. The unconstitutionality consisted, as alleged, in the fact that the opening of streets is not expressed in the title, as required by section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that no 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 court at General Term held the act to be constitutional, saying, among other things: “The constitutionality of the act,

chapter 604 of 1874, therefore, necessarily depends upon the question whether the words ‘ laying out ’ include the opening of the streets, or whether the provisions for opening the streets that are laid out, contained in the act, present a subject other than that indicated by the words urveying, laying out and monumenting.’ The word s laying out,’ in a popular sense, mean more than the creation of a mere plan or map. They signify an appropriation, and, when used in reference to a street or park, mean the appropriation of the particular place necessary to accomplish the object in view; and more especially when used in connection with the words monumenting and surveying,’ because the term monumentiing necessarily implies the quasi possession of the locality surveyed, and for which the act itself made provision by directing the commissioners to erect suitable and durable monuments whenever they deemed it requisite to define and designate the streets, and further directing the location of such monuments to be entered upon the maps or plans or profiles filed by them,” citing People ex rel. Gorromissioners v. Berniks ( 67 N. Y., 572 ).