Heaton v. City of Cohoes

Citation270 N.Y. 222,200 N.E. 795
PartiesHEATON et al. v. CITY OF COHOES.
Decision Date03 March 1936
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by William C. Heaton and another, doing business under the name of W. C. Heaton & Company, against the City of Cohoes. A judgment for plaintiff for $5,214.73, and an order denying new trial were affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (244 App.Div. 19, 279 N.Y.S. 1), and the defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed.

HUBBS, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

John A. Brady, Corp. Counsel, of Cohoes, for appellant.

Kenneth S. MacAffer and A. Kendall Roberts, both of Albany, for respondents.

CROUCH, Judge.

Plaintiffs, certified accountants, sued to recover the contract price of professional services rendered to the defendant city under employment by the mayor. Judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury for $4,000 and interest and affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The essential facts found by the jury were that on October 2, 1929, the plaintiffs and the mayor, acting for the defendant city, entered into a contract whereby the plaintiffs were authorized, (1) to examine the books and papers of the office of the comptroller of the city of Cohoes, with a view to a thorough investigation and examination of the finances of the city of Cohoes and all its fiscal affairs; (2) to examine into the books and papers of all other departments of the city of Cohoes in any way relating to its financial condition or management; (3) to make recommendations as to the installation of a better system of accountancy and financial management; (4) to report as to each of said matters; that plaintiffs substantially performed the contract on their part; that the contract price was $4,000; and that the city had refused to pay.

If the mayor in making the contract with plaintiffs acted within the scope of the authoritygranted to the mayor by the charter of the city of Cohoes (Laws 1915, c. 130), the judgment may be affirmed; otherwise not. The charter contains various provisions carefully limiting the power of city officers, boards, and departments to contract debts on behalf of the city, and it is broadly provided (section 115) that no person shall have power to contract any debt for which the city shall be liable unless specifically authorized by the provisions of the charter. The manner in which the power to contract debts shall be exercised and evidenced is also prescribed by various provisions. In particular the city points to section 110, which relates to the functions of the board of contract and supply and provides, among other things, that it shall be the duty of such board, after public notice, to let to the lowest bidder all contracts for the performance of any work for the use of any officer, board, or department of the city in all cases where the expenses of such work shall exceed the sum of $250, unless by ordinance of the common council, unanimously adopted and unanimously approved by the board of estimate and apportionment, it is determined to be impracticable to procure such work by contract, in which case said ordinance shall designate the officer, board, or department to procure such work. Attention is also called to section 99, which provides that no officer, board, or department shall incur any liability upon or by virtue of an open market order until an order in writing, made in triplicate, is submitted to the comptroller, and he shall have certified thereon that unexpended funds, appropriated for that purpose, are available to meet a claim therefor if incurred.

It may be conceded that the contract in suit was not made in compliance with any of these various provisions. Because of such failure the defendant contends that the contract is unenforceable. Plaintiffs rest their entire case on section 55 of the city charter, which reads as follows: § 55. Examination of books and accounts. The mayor shall have authority at all times to examine the books and papers of any officer, employee or department of the city and, as often as he may deem proper, to appoint one or more competent persons to examine,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Astwood v. Cohen
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1944
    ...Council of City of Lackawanna, 223 N.Y. 445, 119 N.E. 894;Keep v. City of Lockport, 266 N.Y. 583, 195 N.E. 210; Heaton v. City of Cohoes, 270 N.Y. 222, 226, 220 N.E. 795; Schaefer v. City of Long Beach, 271 N.Y. 81, 2 N.Ed.2d 53; City of Johnstown v. Wells, 274 N.Y. 623, 11 N.E.2d 787;Kapla......
  • Potts v. City of Utica
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 30, 1936
    ...was not in accordance with the Educational Law (Consol.Laws N.Y. c. 16) which there applied and does not here; and on Heaton v. City of Cohoes, 270 N.Y. 222, 200 N. E. 795, where it was held that the services for which the plaintiff was employed by the mayor and which were rendered did not ......
  • Boylhart v. Di Marco & Reimann, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 1936
    ... ... Baar, Arthur Block, James E. Whalen, and David E. Winer, all of New York City, for appellants.270 N.Y. 218]William Dike Reed, of New York City, for respondent.[270 N.Y ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT