People ex rel. Trs. of Village of Jamaica v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Queens Cnty.

• Citation: 131 N.Y. 468,30 N.E. 488
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. TRUSTEES OF VILLAGE OF JAMAICA et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF QUEENS COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 15 March 1892
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

131 N.Y. 468

30 N.E. 488

PEOPLE ex rel. TRUSTEES OF VILLAGE OF JAMAICA et al.

v.BOARD OF SUP'RS OF QUEENS COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 15, 1892.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Certiorari on the relation of the trustees of the village of Jamaica and Aaron A. Degrauw and others, tax-payers, against the board of supervisors of Qucens county, to review the action of the board in directing the improvement of certain highways in the town of Jamaica, and an issue of county bonds to defray the expense thereof. From a judgment of the general term affirming the action of the board, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Augustus N. Weller, (John E. Parsons, of counsel,) for appellants.

Francis H. Van Vechten, for respondents.

EARL, C. J.

On the 25th day of May, 1891, the supervisors of Queens county passed an act ‘for the improvement of certain public highways in the town of Jamaica, in the county of Queens,’ in which they provided for grading, regulating, and macadamizing certain streets and highways in the village and town of Jamaica. The act provided for raising $400,000 for the expense of the improvement, upon bonds to be issued by the county treasurer of the county; and it regulated the rate of interest, the time of payment, and the form of the bonds. It provided that the whole expense of the improvement should be paid by taxes to by levied in the town of Jamaica, and it appointed five persons commissioners to take charge of and superintend the improvement, who were to serve without compensation. The supervisors claimed authority to pass the act under section 2 of chapter 855 of the Laws of 1869, and it was passed with the assent of two-thirds of all the supervisors; the supervisor of Jamaica voting therefor. These relators, claiming that the action of the supervisors was illegal and unauthorized by law, procured a writ of certiorari to review their action; and the court, granting the writ, ordered that further proceedings to lay out and repair the highways by the board of supervisors, or by the special commissioners by them appointed, be stayed pending the certiorari proceeding, or until the further order of the court. The supervisors made return to the writ, and the court, upon the return and after hearing counsel for the respective parties, affirmed the proceedings of the supervisors.

Upon that hearing the counsel for the supervisors, as we infer from the opinion of the court, objected that the proceedings could not be reviewed by writ of certiorari. The court overruled that objection, and decided the case presented to it upon the merits. The same objection is made here, and we think it is insuperable. The court is so clearly without jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the supervisors upon this writ that we ought not to pass upon the merits involved. The writ of certiorari is appropriate only to review the judicial action of inferior courts or of public officers, or bodies exercising under the laws judicial functions; and there is no authority to be found in the Reports of this state sanctioning its use for any other purpose. When the action of a public officer or of a public body is merely legislative, executive, or administrative, although it may involve the exercise of discretion, it cannot be reviewed by certiorari; and so it has been so often held that the rule...