People ex rel. Faulkner v. Trustees of Dansville — 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 593

Majority

p. 593

THE PEOPLE ex rel. LESTER B. FAULKNER v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF DANSVILLE.

Headnote

C&rtiorarñ—what errors may hereviewed by — Cha/p. 285, 1873 — constitutionality of —Seo. 16, Art, 3, of the Constitution.

In 1873, an actwt s passed, entitled, “An act to authorize the village of Dansville to create a debt for the purpose of bringing water into said village for protection against fires, and to amend the charter of said village.” The first four sections of the act authorized the trustees to introduce water into the village, and to create a debt and issue bonds to the amount of $25,000 ; the remaining sections amended various portions of the charter of the village. Held, that the act did not violate section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution.

That the act was, in substance, one to amend the charter of the village, and that the conferring of power to create a debt for the purpose of supplying the village with water, is only one of the elements of this general subject which is stated in the title.

Oeetiobabi to review the proceedings of the trustees of the village of Dansville, in issuing certain bonds to defray the expense of introducing water into the village.

In 1813, the legislature passed an act, chapter 285, entitled, “ An act to authorize the village of Dansville to create a debt for the purpose of bringing water into said village for protection against fires, and to amend the charter of said village.” The first four sections of this act authorized the trustees of the village to create a debt, and issue bonds for the purpose of introducing water into, the village. The remaining sections of the act amended in various particulars the charter of the village. The trustees were required to cause a survey, plan and estimate of the expense of the waterworks, to be made and published in all the newspapers; and section 4 provided that “ no debt shall be created under the provisions of this act other than for the expenses provided for in the

p. 594

last foregoing section, until the statement aforesaid has been published as aforesaid, nor until the question of the creation of said debt has been submitted to the tax-payers of said village, at an election to be called for that purpose, and at which a majority of such tax-payers present and voting at such election shall have voted in favor of the creation of such debt. The trustees shall fix the time and place of such election and the form of the ballot to be used thereat.” * * * The trustees passed a resolution submitting to the tax-payers the question whether or not the debt should be created, and prescribed a time and place for voting. The ballots were indorsed on the outside, “ Dansville Waterworks,” and on the inside, “For Water-works,” or, “Against Water-works.” The relator insisted that from the form of the ballots used, the question, whether or not a debt should be created, was never passed upon by the people.

Solomon Hubbard da H. B. Selden, for the relator.

John A. Vcmderlvp, for the respondent.

We think the writ of oertiora/ri should have been directed to the board of trustees, instead of the corporation, and that the return should have been made by them, or by the clerk. By the eighth section of the village charter, the trustees are required to form a board, and the next section requires the clerk to attend all meetings of such board; to record their proceedings; and to deliver such record over to his successors.^[2]

But, as an amendment of this defect might be allowed, we will consider the material objections of the relator to the proceedings returned.

It is said, the statute which authorizes the proceeding violates section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution. We shall not spend much time on this, for the learning pertaining to it has been pretty nearly exhausted in previous cases. We think this act fairly meets the test declared in the last reported decision of the Court of Appeals on this subject, namely, that “ if the title of an act

p. 595

fairly and reasonably announces the subject, and that is a single one, and if the various parts thereof relate to that, it is sufficient ”^[2]

The act is, in substance, one to amend the charter of the village. The conferring of power to create a debt for the purpose of supplying the village with water, is only one of the elements of the general subject. All the provisions of the act are appropriate to an amendment of the charter, and no matter how many particulars are embraced in the statute, they together constitute but one subject. Nor is it material that the title mentions one of those particulars and omits the others, since it does state that it is an act to amend the charter.

It sufficiently appears that a survey and estimate were made and published, as provided by sections 3 and 4 of the act. But, if there were irregularities in these parts of the proceedings, they were not of a kind that can be corrected by a certiorari, being merely executive or ministerial acts. It is urged that the tax-payers have not voted in favor of creating the debt. We think otherwise. A resolution was passed and published, setting forth the question to be voted on, and the form of the ballot to be used. The form of the ballot was wholly within the control of the .trustees, and there is no evidence before us that they intended any deception, or that anybody was deceived by it. If such evidence had been given, it would not have furnished ground for reversing the proceedings, because it would have shown a legislative error, and not a judicial one, in its character.

For the reason last stated, the other errors alleged, namely, the change of plan and of pipes, cannot be reviewed upon a certiorari.

Upon the whole case, the writ must be quashed, with costs to be paid by the relator.

Writ quashed.

* Re Mayer, 50 N. Y., 504 .

Footnotes

* Laws 1853, 638; Re Mt. Morris Square, 2 Hill, 23 ; 6 Abb., 151 .