2 N.Y.S. 266 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1888
On the 10th of February, 1888, John McEwen, as superintendent of the Albany penitentiary, as party of the first part, with the written approval of the commissioners of the Albany penitentiary, entered into a contract with the plaintiff, of which the following is a copy: “Agreement, made the 10th day of February, 1888, between John McEwen, superintendent of the Albany penitentiary, of the first part, and Edgar Bronk, of the city of Albany, N. Y., of the second part, witnessetli, that the said first party, pursuant to the authority in him vested by resolution of the commissioners of the Albany penitentiary, does hereby hire and employ the second party as manager and agent to oversee and conduct the manufacture of brushes in said penitentiary by the inmates thereof, and generally superintend the same, and the sale of
The rule that an injunction will not issue to restrain a party to a contract from violating its provisions where the party asking for the injunction has an adequate remedy at law, in an action for damages, is elementary, and supported by a uniform current of authorities. Has the plaintiff in this ease a clear, ample, and adequate remedy in an action at law for damiiges for the alleged breach of this contract? By the terms of the contract the plaintiff was to recover, as his share of the avails of the business, 10 per cent, of the amount of gross sales. Ho other profits or benefits are by the contract to accrue to the plaintiff, except the rental of his machinery, for which he was to be paid quarterly, at a specified amount. As the amount plaintiff was to recover was to depend entirely upon the amount of manufacture and sale, it could only be determined upon a computation quarterly, and that amount would depend upon the amount of goods manufactured, and the price at which they sold in the market, both of which would, from the nature of the case, be
It is also urged on the part of the plaintiff, and claimed in the complaint, that no action at law can be maintained against the defendants for damages, on the ground that by the statute under and by which the office of the Albany penitentiary commission was created no power or authority to sue the commissioners for a breach of their agreement is given; and that therefore no action at law to recover damages fora breach of this contract can be maintained against them. The Albany county penitentiary was constructed under the provisions of chapter 152, Laws 1844. By section 4 of that act it was provided that “the management and direction of said penitentiary, when com-pleted, shall be under the control and authority of said board of supervisors and said mayor and recorder of the city of Albany. This provision remained in force until the enactment of chapter 261, Laws 1885, when all the powers and duties theretofore imposed by law on the board of supervisors of Albany county and the mayor and recorder of the city of Albany, except as in that act modified, relating to the Albany penitentiary, were vested in the Albany penitentiary commissioners. That act named the persons and officers who were to compose the commission. Section 9 of that act provided that all the business affairs of said penitentiary shall be conducted in the name of said commissioners as such, and all liabilities existing against any person or corporation shall be enforced by them in their name as commissioners; but it is urged that there is no authority of law given to prosecute such commissioners for any breach of an agreement made with them. It is true that no such authority is given in terms by the act. The commissioners are not by law made a body corporate. They cannot, therefore, be sued as such on their contracts made as penitentiary commissioners. Like the department of public charities of Hew York, they can only exercise such powers, and be subject to such liabilities, as are by law expressly conferred on them. Dock Co. v. Mayor, etc., 8 Hun, 247; Swift v. Mayor, etc., 83 N. Y. 528. Can the city and county of Albany be held liable for a breach of this contract ? By section 6, c. 261, Laws 1885, all moneys required to conduct the business of said penitentiary, or the payment of officers or employes thereof, or any disbursement connected witli it or its management, (except wages and salaries which shall be paid on the certificate of the superintendent of the penitentiary,) shall be paid upon bills
It is insisted on the part of the plaintiff that chapter 586, Laws 1888, has no application to the Albany penitentiary. If that contention be correct, then the contingency provided for in the contract for the rescission or abandonment of the same has not arisen, and that act would furnish no valid excuse for the refusal of the defendants to perform, or to permit the plaintiff to perform, said contract, tiection 1 of that act prohibits the use of motive-power machinery, for manufacturing purposes, in any of the penal institutions of the state, and also prohibits the employment of any person in such institutions, while under sentence, where his labor, or the products of the same, is farmed out, contracted, given, or sold to any person. The second section of the act directs the superintendent of state prisons, and all other officers having in charge the management of the penal institutions of the state, to cause only such articles to be manufactured therein by the inmates thereof as are commonly used and consumed in the public institutions of the state, and that all articles manufactured in such penal institutions not required for use therein shall be furnished to the several institutions supported in whole or in part by the state, for the use of the inmates, upon the requisition of the trustees or the managers thereof upon the superintendent of state prisons. Section 3 makes the superintendent of state prisons, the comptroller of the state, and the president of the state board of charities a board whose duty it shall be to determine the value and price at which all articles manufactured in such penal institutions, and furnished for use in the several institutions of the state, shall be furnished. The comptroller is required to devise and furnish to the several institutions a proper form for such requisition, and also a proper system of account to be kept for all such institutions. All money received for such articles upon such
It is worthy of remark that in the title of the bill not only, but also in every provision of the bill where penal institutions are mentioned, they are characterized as “the penal institutions of the state.” Is that phrase broad enough to embrace all the penal institutions within the state, and does it include all county penal institutions, such as county jails constructed by counties under general laws for the construction of such local prisons, and also penitentiaries erected and maintained under special laws at the expense of a county? In determining this question, it is manifestly the duty of the court to give effect to the language used in the act according to its usual and ordinary meaning. There is no ambiguity in the language, and there seems to be no occasion for speculation as to the intent of the legislature further than the language employed fairly imports. It is argued by the defendant, with much force of reason, that the object sought to be obtained by this legislation was to relieve free labor from the unjust competition of prison labor, and that competition from the penitentiary is just as injurious as it would be from the state prisons, and that, as this is in its nature a remedial statute, it should be so construed as to give it effect even beyond its letter, in furtherance of this beneficial purpose. It is true that, in construing remedial statutes, they are to be construed liberally with a view to the accomplishment of the beneficial purpose which the legislature intended. But that rule ought not to be so extended by the court as to override the plain language of the act or to result in judicial legislation. “ Where the language of a statute is definite, and has a precise meaning, it must be presumed to declare the intent of the legislature, and it is not allowable to resort to other means of interpretation or by conjecture to restrict or extend the meaning.” Johnson v. Railroad Co., 49 N. Y. 455; McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 601. “All statutes must have a construction according to the language employed, and where no ambiguity exists courts cannot correct supposed defects. ” Benton v. Wickwire, 54 N. Y. 226. Statutes and contracts should be read and understood according to the natural and most obvious import of-the language, without resorting to subtle arid forced constructions for the purpose of either limiting or extending their operations. The object of interpretation is to bring sense out of the word used, and not to bring sense into them. “If the words embody a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity or contradiction between different parts of the same writing, then the meaning apparent upon the face of the instrument is the one which alone we are at liberty to say was intended to be conveyed. In such case there is no room for construction. ” McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 602. Tested by these rules of construction, and giving the language its ordinary meaning, without regard to any extrinsic fact or circumstance, would the words “penal institutions of the state” be understood to mean other than the state prisons, and such other prisons and reformatories as are constructed by the state, and maintained at state expense? Or would that phrase, standing alone, and unqualified by any extrinsic fact or circumstance, be understood to embrace all county jails and penitentiaries erected and maintained at local county expense, and governed by local and not state officers ?
It is true that, in the early history of the state, county jails were the only penal institutions for the punishment and confinement of persons charged with crime, but in the early statutes by authority of which they were erected
There are other provisions of the Laws of 1888, which might be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the legislative intent, and bearing upon the question as to whether that act embraced penitentiaries and other county penal institutions. The act of 1888 provides that the articles manufactured under its provisions shall be furnished to the several institutions supported in whole or part by the state, upon the requisition of the trustees or managers thereof, drawn upon the superintendent of state prisons; and it is worthy of notice that, in speaking of the institutions entitled to such benefits, in section 8 of said act, the same language is used as that in designating the penal institutions embraced in the act, viz., “furnished for use in the several institutions of the state,” Is that language broad enough to authorize the application of such manufactured articles, upon the requisition of the superintendents of the poor of counties on the superintendent of state prisons, to be applied in clothing county paupers, or on the application of a sheriff of a county to draw supplies for prisoners confined in the county jails, or to al
B ut it is urged by the learned counsel for the defendants that, as convicts from