People ex rel. Henderson v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Westchester Cnty.

Decision Date08 October 1895
Citation147 N.Y. 1,41 N.E. 563
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. HENDERSON v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Petition for mandamus by the people, upon the relation of Henry G. Henderson, to compel the board of supervisors of the county of Westchester to reform the assembly districts so as to include therein certain territory detached from said county and annexed to the county and city of New York. From a judgment granting the writ, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

William H. Robertson, for appellant.

William D. Guthrie, for respondent.

ANDREWS, C. J.

This controversy involves the constitutionality of chapter 934 of the Laws of 1895, approved June 6, 1895, and which took effect the same day, annexing a portion of the county of Westchester to the county of New York. The annexed territory at the time of the annexation consisted of a town and parts of towns and of two villages in the county of Westchester, having a population of upwards of 13,000 persons, excluding aliens, of whom about 2,500 were duly-qualified voters. The act declared that the territory therein described, ‘with the inhabitants and estates therein, is hereby set off from the county of Westchester and annexed to, merged in and made a part of the city and county of New York and of the Twenty-Fourth ward of said city and county, subject to the same laws, ordinances, regulations, obligations and liabilities, and entitled to the same rights, privileges, franchises and immunities in every respect and to the same extent as if said territory had been included within said city and county of New York at the time of the grant and adoption of the first charter and organization thereof and had so remained to the passage of this act, and except as may be modified by this act, as if such territory had been included within said Twenty-Fourth ward by the provisions of chapter 613 of the Laws of 1873, entitled ‘An act to provide for the annexation of the towns of Morrisania, West Farms and Kingsbridge in the county of Westchester to the city and county of New York,’ and the several acts amendatory thereof, and had so remained up to the passage of this act.' The board of supervisors of Westchester county assembled on the second Tuesday of June, 1895 (six days after the act of annexation took effect), pursuant to the requirement of section 5, art. 3, of the new constitution, to divide the county into three assembly districts, equal to the number of members of assembly apportioned to Westchester county; and made the division of the then existing territory of the county into three assembly districts, excluding from the division the territory embraced in the act of annexation. The board of aldermen of the city of New York on the same day assembled and divided the city and county of New York into assembly districts, but in the division no notice was taken of the annexed territory, and the division was confined to the territory of the city and county of New York as it existed before the act of annexation. The result of the action of the two boards was, therefore, to leave the annexed territory unattached to any assembly district. Thereupon this proceeding was instituted, to compel the board of supervisors of Westchester county to reassemble and re-form the assembly districts by including in the division the territory taken from the county of Westchester by the act of annexation. The proceeding was taken on the view that, notwithstanding the act, the annexed territory remained a part of Westchester county for assembly district purposes. A mandamus proceeding was also instituted in the city and county of New York to compel the board of aldermen of that city to reassemble, and include in an assembly district to be found therein the territory added to the county by the act of annexation. This proceeding was based on the contention that the act of annexation operated from the time of its passage to make the excluded territory for all purposes, including the formation of assembly districts, a part of the city and county of New York. In addition to the two proceedings mentioned, actions were commenced in the county of Westchester, one by the town of Westchester and one by the village of Williamsbridge, which town and village were included in the act of annexation, against certain officers of the street and police departments of the city of New York, who, acting under the authority of the city, had intermeddled with the public property of the town and village, to obtain an injunction to restrain them from interfering therewith. The act of annexation by its terms vests in the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city and county of New York all the public property in the annexed territory, and these actions were based upon the theory that the act of annexation was wholly unconstitutional and void for all purposes whatever. The mandamus proceeding against the board of aldermen of the city and county of New York has been heard and decided by the special and general terms in the First district and department, and the other mandamus proceeding and the injunction actions by the courts in the Second department, and all the cases have been argued before us on appeal. The courts below have concurred in the opinion that the annexed territory should be treated as a part of Westchester county in the formation of assembly districts, and that it was the duty of the board of supervisors of Westchester county to have included it in one of the three districts in that county. The courts in the Second department affirmed the constitutionality of the act, chapter 934 of the Laws of 1895, as an act of annexation, but held that the annexed territory is still a part of the Twenty-Second senate district, and that for the purpose of voting for senator, assemblyman, and judges of the supreme court it must still be considered as a part of Westchester county. The learned judge who delivered the opinion at special term in the case arising in the city and county of New York held substantially the same view as that of the judges in the Second district. The general term of the First department did not pass upon the question of the constitutionality of the act, but limited itself to deciding the precise question presented in that case, viz. whether the annexed territory should be included in an assembly district in the city and county of New York or in the county of Westchester. The appeals before us, taken together, cover the whole field of controversy, and they impose upon the court the duty of finally determining the grave and difficult questions presented.

The main grounds of attack upon the constitutionality of the annexation act are: (1) That it changes the Twenty-Second senate district, which, by the constitution, was declared to consist of the county of Westchester; the claim being that no alteration in county lines can be made without changing the senate district, since, by the constitutional arrangement, the county of Westchester, with its established boundaries at the time of the adoption of the constitution of 1894 and the senate districts, were and must remain inseparably associated until after another enumeration. (2) That taking from Westchester county a part of its territory changes the basis of the apportionment of members of assembly made by the constitution to the county of Westchester, and nullifies the requirement that each assembly district shall be wholly within a senate district formed by the constitution, because it would become impossible of execution if the act is valid. The Twenty-Second senate district, it is claimed, existing after the act took effect, would not be the same district defined in the constitutional apportionment, viz. the county of Westchester as then organized. (3) The act changes the lines of judicial districts and departments theretofore established, in defiance of constitutional restrictions.

It becomes necessary, in considering these objections, to refer to the provisions of the new constitution. The constitution, by section 3, art. 3, divides the entire territory of the state into 50 senate districts, corresponding to the number of senators to be elected, consisting of one or more counties or of subdivisions of a county. It declares that the Twenty-Second senate district shall consist of the county of Westchester, and it divides the city and county of New York into 12 senate districts, bounding each of the 12 districts by streets and avenues, or by streets, avenues, and public waters, except that in constituting the Twenty-First senate district (one of the 12 districts) a general clause is added to the description by streets and avenues, which includes therein territory taken from the county of Westchester, and annexed to the city and county of New York by the act chapter 613 of the Laws of 1873, which territory, it is said, had not been mapped and laid out with streets or avenues on a permanent plan when the convention prepared the legislative article. Section 4 of the same article provides that an enumeration of the inhabitants of the state shall be taken in the year 1905, and every tenth year thereafter, and directs that the senate districts ‘shall be so altered by the legislature at the first regular session after the return of every enumeration, that each senate district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, and be in as compact a form as possible, and shall reamin unaltered until the return of another enumeration, and shall at all times consist of contiguous territory, and no county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district except to make two or more senate districts wholly in one county.’ The section also prohibits the division of a town, or block in a city, inclosed by streets or public ways, in the formation of a senate district. By section 2 of the same article the assembly is to consist of 150 members. Section 5 deals with the subject of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Legislature v. Deukmejian
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1983
    ...limitations on redistricting with the power to create or modify boundaries of political subdivisions. (See People v. Board of Sup'rs. (1895) 147 N.Y. 1 [41 N.E. 563]; Lanning v. Carpenter (1859) 20 N.Y. 447; Stone v. Charlestown (1873) 114 Mass. 214, 226-227; Warren v. Mayor (1854) 68 Mass.......
  • State v. Hitchcock
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1912
    ...209 Mo. 708, loc. cit. 716-718, 108 S. W. 563; People ex rel. v. Rice; 135 N. Y. 473, 31 N. E. 921, 16 L. R. A. 836; People ex rel. v. Board of Supervisors, 147 N. Y. 1, loc. cit. 3, 8, 41 N. E. 563, 30 L. R. A. 74. However, they further insist that the rule there announced has no applicati......
  • State ex rel. Barrett v. Hitchcock
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1912
    ...95 S.W. 913; State ex rel. v. Nast, 209 Mo. 708, 716-8, 108 S.W. 563; People ex rel. v. Rice, 135 N.Y. 473, 31 N.E. 921; People ex rel. v. Supervisors, 147 N.Y. 1, 3, 8. they further insist that the rule there announced has no application to the facts of this case, for two reasons: first, b......
  • Bay Ridge Community Council v. Carey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1982
    ...impossible, the statute will be upheld." Matter of Fay, 291 N.Y. 198, 206-207, 52 N.E.2d 97 (1943); People ex rel. Henderson v. Board of Supervisors, 147 N.Y. 1, 15-16, 41 N.E. 563 (1895). Other courts have similarly rejected attempts by litigants to submit private plans that were asserted ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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