172 N.E. 261 | NY | 1930
The question to be determined is the validity under the State Constitution of chapter 772 of the Laws of 1928.
By that act, the Legislature attempted to clothe the Court of Claims with jurisdiction to audit and determine "the claim of any judge or judges of the Court of General Sessions of the county of New York for counsel fees and expenses incurred by him or them in successfully defending any action or proceeding heretofore brought against him or them by reason of any act, decision or judgment arising out of his or their judicial duties since nineteen hundred and twenty." Upon a finding that such an action or proceeding had been brought and had been finally determined in favor of the judge or judges, there was to be a judgment against the State "for such sum as shall be just and equitable," not exceeding, however, the sum of $15,000 in any one instance.
The claimant, a judge of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, was sued for damages resulting from an official act, the commitment of a person charged to be insane in accordance with section 87 of the Insanity Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 27). He successfully defended the action, and in so doing incurred expenses for counsel fees and disbursements in the sum of $2,249.09. The Court of Claims has dismissed his claim for reimbursement on the ground that the enabling *120 act (Laws of 1928, ch. 772) permits an unconstitutional gift of the public moneys of the State.
There is now a settled rule of law that in the absence of legal liability, the Legislature may not permit the audit and allowance of a claim against the State unless it be in fulfillment of a moral obligation (People v. Westchester County Nat. Bank,
We do not now determine whether particular equities may give rise to a moral obligation to reimburse a public officer for expenses incurred in defending his official acts (cf. Cuvillier
v. State of New York,
We measure the validity of statutes, not by what has actually been done under cover of their provisions, but by what with reason may be done (Stuart v. Palmer,
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ., concur; LEHMAN, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.