*1 ALBANY, SEPTEMBER, 1855. Suрervisors against Chenango County.
Town of Guilford The The should therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered. JJ., and also to the delivered opinions Hand,
Marvin same effect.
Judgment accordingly. Board Town of Guilford against County and others. Nor is Neither is Accordingly, n Town Guilford v. amount such brought clusive, at town under an act of town. of a rejected be collected and in the name legislature passed and cuted satisfy that thoir decision should be final and conclusive. dicate the tax seems that a amount amount compelled town, it a valid suits, a suit which the tax is awarded, meeting, an action the statute against passed and where Cornell and the voters awarded paid of this state has town, payers appropriate objection the town to restrain the direсtion of the voters paid directing that the an act an act the town. Cornell, such in its legislature authorizing imposing in satisfaction from an declaring the costs and expended by directing authorizing corporate submission levied, act was constitutional thе same to the town, [18] Barb. the exercise illegal board of town, the tax that thoir is not recoverable their claim when submitted to them capacity, Cornell to commissioners tax. Per and were it was as commissioners the assessment and collection of the levy void, of such claim; Held, decision affirmed. payment such submission a tax cannot thereof, although rejected; to be submitted Denio, beaten; and upon should be final town, maintain an to determine of a claim made valid. in the town, the claim had in an action and afterwards the recover action and were defeated that the highways, taxable at town and cause it prosecution of thereupon and to the electors action to and award declaring to assess and con- claim, meeting, brought prose- been vin- action court, brought of the town Guilford one of the towns name IN THE COÜRT OF CASES APPEALS. *2 Supervisors Chenango County. Town Guilford and Clark and the Cornell of Chenango, against county to restrain the of Chenango county, board of supervisors and from from levying collecting board of supervisors town, a sum citizens of the of the the taxable property an to under and Clark to Cornell and pursuant awarded 1852, relief for their p. 12); act of the legislature {Lawsof assess to act the board of directed supervisors which' the town of from the taxable Guil- and collect was whether ford. The question principal 'held to the act. court had authority pass Barbour, From this to be valid. the act 615.) {See facts of the The other plaintiff aрpealed. court. stated case are sufficiently opinions for the H. R. appellant. Mygatt, Dickinson,for the D. S. respondents. Cornell and Clark were commis formerly
Dean, Guilford, such, of the town of sioners of as highways town, direction voters had sued the Butter nuts and Road Oxford were Turnpike Company. They action, were, unsuccessful after a long litigation, costs. The town then refused to obliged reimburse costs. them these Cornell town, and, sued the resort, the action to after the court of last prosecuting had no ascertained they then legal remedy. They legislature, procured applied authorizing town, or not to be question payment submit at voters ted town succeeding (Laws meeting. 1851, The voters decided that would not tax 37.) p. such themselves Another рurpose. application resulted made to passage now question. (Laws the act p. 12.) and, assume, commenced as I shall action is nominally, the town of to procure Guilford really, by perpetual
ALBANY, SEPTEMBER, Chenango Town Guilford to restrain and thе hoard Cornell injunction cf to levy Chenango county, proceeding law tax authorized ground case, This, is the as I view the unconstitutional. only which is decided. necessary The law authorized the county judge commissioners,whose it should three duty appoint *3 the amount of costs be hear and determine and defence incurred Cornell prosecution the commissioners of suits mentioned. It authorized the make, hands, of award, of a or that their majority of clerk them, be filed with the which was to It made it the оf the board duty Chenango. annual 'after the at their next filing said county, meeting award, same the taxable the
of said pro- apportion Guilford, and for its collection of the town provide perty are collected. manner as other taxes the same law; such a that to enact power Has the any a a town to is, law a taxing individual ? a claim of private is one derivative federal government, general and as a congress,
and limited consequence, powers; can exercise of that branch government, only legislative the constitution which are conferred those prerogatives instrument, is, 8 of it. The taxing power § duties, of federal and excises limited. Uniformity imposts States, is also the United for by throughout provided the ratio in which direct taxes shall be And same section. is fixed states several § apportioned and restrictions result necessarily limitations These the federal character of govern- and derivative limited ment. existence, is an our state
But independent government power sovereignty people. representing and is of that sovereignty, toe ' in all matters unlimited per- in all respects, IN GASES THE COUNT OF APPEALS. Town of Conn',7. Guilford in those instances taining legitimate legislation, except have, where law, in their fundamental limited рeople or restricted it. Taxation is a indisputably legislative The constitution of state will be searched in power. vain for which contains clause restiiction or limi- any tation on Provisions taxing legislature. are, there bills, the manner in which regulating appropri- local or ating or bills moneys private purposes, taxes shall be Section 13 art.- requires imposing passed. tax, the title of bill a every imposing specify object law. 14 of the same Section article requires tax, the final passаge every ques- imposes noes, shall tion be taken and that three-fifths by ayes shall be to constitute Section 9 of art. necessary quorum.. I, the assent of two-thirds to the requires passage every bill for local appropriating public moneys seen, it will These are not limita private purposes. *4 tions the absolute of the over the power legislature public taxes, in or of the like the but moneys, imposition manner of rules the its exercise. Whenever prescribing observed, these formalities аre the has the right the for or local moneys appropriate private pur a the tax of the whole poses, impose property state, state, any portion particular kind If it is feared that this specified property. abused, аbused, if be it is in fact neither the may appre hension the nor the non-existence of the reality prove power. Indeed, court, I had that the decision of this in supposed case Comstock, the v. &c., People Mayor, Brooklyn(4 had settled thе as matter of question 419), authority; in the the that elaborate reasoning, very opinion Euggles, case, , in had shown that the decision in right affirmed, case should be principle. Denio, we to a conclusion J. As have come adverse to action, is thе merits the plaintiff upon unnecessary ¿855. SEPTEMBER,
ALBANY, Supervisors of agwinst The of Guilford Town whether a suit can question opinion express in such a case as the a town be maintained by present, tax be which the illegal. assuming proceeding at, is to restrain not aimеd cannot seeks affect plaintiff or the of the town. rights corporate corporate property a from the tax and out of It claims contribution payers town; and for that it em purpose of certain town officers. It does the instrumentality ploys town, as me not can corporate body, appear in court to vindicate the rights have standing affirmed this court tax principles payers. Kern., seem to Monroe v. Town mo (1 392), Lorillard to the action. to be hostile counsel that the under act
It is plaintiff’s argued because, a former ques- invalid consideration be levied to a tax should tion whether to the electors at towmmeet- submitted had been Cornell and determined had been ing, 1851, It is said that the defendants. (Laws p. 17.) examinatiоn, immediately whereby passing own of its the audit- authority provided the taxable ing levying expenses upon certain vested town p. 12), rights (Laws of which, it is cannot were destroyed, argued, tax payers with constitutional The con- done consistently principles. the state stitution of the United States prohibits legislatures contracts, and our own constitution with interfering *5 limitations, secures, certain of under inviolability private is, moreover, a ; out and there of arising principle the distribution great political power depart- which ments of prevents government, legislature exercise of Each judicial authority. attempting is vested these designed rights. protect provisions 1852, in its see that the act of relation to the But I do not them. is to either of The act of the former hostile statute, the first mentioned did under not town meeting, n IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OASES Chenango County. against Supervisors Town Guilford contract, the character of a and it was not partake its to confer nature It voters judicial. professed certain of the kind exer- administrаtive authority usually cised It did not result in legislature. affording Messrs. Cornell and the relief to which the legislature them It was re- entitled. ultimately thought accordingly the act of the next The pealed year. repeal destroyed the effect of the which declared that the result of provision at town should be final and vote conclusive. meeting Besides the section of the act of the other repealing that act would been a irresisti- have repeal by provisions ; for those enacted that the claim ble provisions implication should be allowed and notwithstanding anything paid, have been done under law. Subse- might the.prior laws earlier ones where there is a over quent always prevail them, conflict between cases where the stat- except prior contract, utes are in the nature of a or clothe an individual can- with rights legislature proprietary property. courts, is not thus deal with the because it judgments but, said, not clothed with as I have already judicial power; the deсision of the town was not deter- meeting judicial full, full, too mination. statute book perhaps kinds laws various awarding damages compensation had failed to individuals who to be paid them 'what considered due to obtain equitably officers under decisiоn administrative acting provision no of former laws. The courts have supervise in such cases. or review doings had a the town vote of conclusive effect meeting, though it was remained in while the law under which exist- given ence, no element of inviolаbility any provi- possessed sion the constitution. cannot take taking authorize without of an public purposes, or for though purposes, compen-
compensation private however, determine what sation is can. provided. *6 ALBANY, SEPTEMBER, 1855. 149 Town of Guilford taxation,
sums shall be raised and the purposes which the shall be If the money are applied. purposes local, or more than absolute private something majority of the members of the legislature (Const., must concur. 1, 9.) art. is no § There but law received vote. The is not in requisite confined its appropriation public of the sums to moneys, in raised taxation of individuals, favor casesin which demand exists legal It can state. thus recog- nize claims founded in in equity justice, largest sense of these terms, or in gratitude charity. Indeрen- dently restrictions, constitutional express can make appropriations money whenever public well-being or will be requires it; and it is promoted by judge what is for the can, moreover, public good. under the taxes, to levy apportion burthens among all the state, citizens tax-paying those of section or particular It well political settled, division. that the to raise authority money by exercise is not conflict taxing with the constitutional pro- visions protecting private seizure. The two coexist the constitution, and it is principles not difficult between them. distinguish (The People v. Mayor, &c., Comst., 4 Brooklyn, 419.) supreme court should be affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.1
Beckham,
also,
Brewster
People v. Supervisors of
v.
these
City of
eases,
Syracuse,
Erie,
Baldwin
END AT TERM.