160 N.Y.S. 978 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1916
The questions arise on demurrer to the complaint. In June, 1909, pursuant to a resolution of its board of trustees, the president of the defendant village executed in its name a contract with plaintiff, whereby the latter agreed (1) to make an audit of the receipt of all taxes and assessments in such village between named dates; (2) to abstract in book form all unpaid items thereof from 1881; (3) to calculate the interest, charges and penalties on each unpaid item from May 1, 1896, to May 1, 1909, and (4) to devise and to install an effective system of accounting for all the various departments of the village, and to complete the work by October 1,1909, in consideration of the sum of $6,000 to he paid by the defendant. The plaintiff, as alleged, duly performed the contract within the time fixed oían extension of it, and the board of trustees on defendant’s
(1) to legalize the- acts and proceedings of the board of trustees of the village of Port Chester in contracting for and authorizing
(a) the determination of the amount of unpaid taxes and assessments, and
(b) for establishing and putting into effect improved methods of accounting for such village,
(2) to legalize the services performed under such contract or in connection therewith,
(3) to authorize the board of trustees to make payment therefor if able to agree upon the amount due,
(4) and, otherwise, to authorize the maintenance of an action to determine such amount.
Consider the body of the act.
(1) All the acts and proceedings of the board of trustees are legalized in awarding a contract to Gaynor (a) for auditing the books and accounts of such village for the purpose of disclosing the unpaid taxes and assessments, and (b) for improving the method of accounting pursuant to the resolution, etc.
(2) The execution of the contract of June 28, 1909, is legalized and the amount of compensation as fixed by such contract is declared a legal and binding obligation of the villagd.
(3) Reasonable compensation for additional work in calculating interest and penalties as directed by the president of the board of trustees and the corporation counsel is declared a legal and binding obligation of the village.
(4) Loss sustained by plaintiff by' reason of delay caused by failure of the board to obtain access for him to books in tax receiver’s office is declared a legal and binding obligation of village.
(5) The board of trustees is authorized to agree with plaintiff upon amount of compensation to be paid for additional work and for loss sustained.
(Y) Plaintiff, in case of disagreement with trustees or refusal by them to pay amount of contract and interest, may institute and maintain action against the village to recover compensation agreed hy terms of contract, or the fair value of the work, labor and services rendered and materials furnished, and reasonable compensation for additional work and loss sustained, with interest, as provided by section 1.
(8) Board shall levy tax to pay judgment.
It appears that the plaintiff is authorized to recover compensation fixed by the contract for the work it contemplates or the reasonable value in lieu thereof; also the value of "extra labor done by direction of the president of the village and the corporation counsel, concerning which no cause of action purports to be stated, and also damages for delay caused him by the board of trustees. It does not appear in the act that it was the duty of the trustees to furnish such opportunity, although in the complaint it is alleged that they so agreed in the contract. I find nothing in the title that indicates legislation authorizing recovery of damages for such delinquency on the part of the trustees. The title of the act relates to services done under the employment of the trustees or in connection therewith, and not to losses sustained by a breach of the contract on the part of the trustees in failing to furnish access to books. The provisions authorizing recovery for extra work directed by the president of the board of trustees and the corporation counsel are not remotely suggested in the title, nor are' they cognate to anything in it, unless it be the words “or in connection therewith.” But I interpret such words to refer to work done in connection with the contract by direction of the board of trustees, as alleged in the complaint, whether communicated through the president and corporation counsel or otherwise. The Constitution (Art. 3, § 16) is: “No private or local bill * * * shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” In Devlin v. Mayor (63 N. Y. 8, 20) it is said: “ This provision of the fundamental law has been commended as an efficient and
The order, modified in accordance herewith, should be affirmed, without costs.
Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Order modified in accordance with opinion, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Order to be settled before Mr. Justice Thomas.