Adams v. East River Sav. Inst.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1892
• Citation: 32 N.E. 622,136 N.Y. 52
• Parties: ADAMS, County Treasurer, v. EAST RIVER SAV. INST.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

136 N.Y. 52

32 N.E. 622

ADAMS, County Treasurer,

v.EAST RIVER SAV. INST.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 29, 1892.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Action by Henry H. Adams, county treasurer of Kings county, against the East River Savings Institution, to compel payment of a check given for Kings county bonds. From a judgment of the general term, (20 N. Y. Supp. 12,) readered for plaintiff on a submitted case, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Clarence F. Birdseye, for appellant.

Wm. C. De Witt and John B. Meyerborg, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

It appears from the record that on the 14th of April, 1892, the plaintiff, as county treasurer of the county of Kings, acting under the authority of a resolution of the board of supervisors of that county and certain statutes then in force, offered for sale and invited bids for bonds of the county amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $620,000. Various persons and corporations thereupon made bids for the purchase of the bonds. The defendant bid the sum of $91,104 for $90,000 par value of the same, and its bid was duly accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant gave its check for the amount of the bid, but afterwards stopped the payment thereof, and refused to complete its purchase, upon the ground that the bonds were void, having been issued without power and in violation of the prohibition contained in article 8, § 11, of the state constitution. It is conceded that, if the bonds are valid, the defendant is bound to receive them, and pay the sum bid therefor; otherwise not. Upon an agreed case submitted to the general term, it was held that the plaintiff had power to issue and sell the bonds, and that the portion of the issue purchased by the defendant was a valid obligation, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. We think that the judgment is correct, and, as the reasons in support of the conclusion reached have been very fully and clearly stated by the learned judge who gave the opinion at the general term, in which we fully concur, it is quite unnecessary for us to enter upon any lengthy discussion of the question. The provision of the constitution which it is claimed forbids the issue of the bonds in question went into effect on the 1st of January, 1885, and is as follows: ‘No county containing a city of over one hundred thousand inhabitants, or any such city, shall be allowed to become indebted for any purpose or in any manner to an amount which, including existing indebtedness, shall exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation of the real estate of such county or city subject to taxation, as it appeared by the assessment rolls of said county or city on the last assessment for state or county taxes prior to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all indebtedness in excess of such limitation, except such as may now exist, shall be absolutely void, except as herein otherwise provided. No such county or city whose present indebtedness exceeds ten per centum of the assessed valuation of its real estate subject to taxation...