Scott v. Village of Saratoga Springs

• Decision Date: 17 June 1910
• Citation: 92 N.E. 393,199 N.Y. 178
• Parties: SCOTT v. VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGS.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

199 N.Y. 178

92 N.E. 393

SCOTT

v.VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 17, 1910.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Action by S. Walter Scott against the Village of Saratoga Springs. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, where the judgment was reversed (131 App. Div. 347, 921,115 N. Y. Supp. 796), and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff stumbled against one of several flagstones temporarily laid upon a sidewalk in the village of Saratoga Springs, at a place where the walk was being repaired, to the knowledge and with the consent and under the direction of the sewer, water, and street commission of said village. He sustained damages for which this action is brought. At the Trial Term the jury rendered a verdict in his favor of $1,000. An appeal was taken from the judgment entered upon such verdict, and from an order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, where the judgment and order were reversed upon the law and exceptions only. It appears from the order that the court examined the facts and found them sufficient to sustain the judgment, and that it affirmed the judgment and order upon the facts. A new trial was granted, with costs to abide the event. From such order of the Appellate Division this appeal is taken, and a stipulation is given by the plaintiff that if the order is affirmed on this appeal, judgment absolute shall be rendered against him. Further facts are found in the opinion.Nash Rockwood, for appellant.

Frank Gick, for respondent.

CHASE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Two questions of law are involved upon this appeal: (1) Can this action be sustained against the defendant, or should it have been brought against the sewer, water, and street commission of Saratoga Springs, N. Y.? (2) Is the act (Laws 1902, c. 506) amending the charter of the village of Saratoga Springs, to provide for the appointment of sewer, water, and street commissioners for said village and to prescribe their powers and duties, constitutional?

Judge Gray, writing for this court in MacMullen v. City of Middletown, 187 N. Y. 37, 79 N. E. 863,11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391, has made more clear than appeared prior to that time the power of the Legislature to prescribe and define the authority of municipalities. Referring in that case to a provision of the charter of the city of Middletown, which provided that no action should be maintained for damages or injuries to the person sustained in consequence of the existence of snow or ice upon any sidewalk of said city, unless written notice thereof relating to the particular place was actually given to the common council, and there was a failure or neglect to cause such snow or ice to be removed, or the place otherwise made reasonably safe within a reasonable time after the receipt of such notice, the judge says: ‘In my view of this question, the Legislature in no wise exceeded its just powers by the enactment of the provision in this charter; however restrictive the requirement. A municipal corporationis a political, or governmental, agency of the state, which has been constituted for the local government of the territorial division described and which exercises, by delegation, a portion of the sovereign power for the public good. In its organization, and in the assignment of its powers and duties, the Legislature acts supremely. The power to grant, or to deny, a remedy by private action for the breach of a duty, imposed upon it for governmental purposes, and to affix conditions, where the right to an action is given, is not one which should be called in question. It may be that such a question, upon precisely these facts, may not have been presented to this court in previous cases. The cases are numerous, which involved the right of the municipality to defeat the claims of a plaintiff, because of the failure to show notice, or knowledge, on its part of the conditions complained of and because of the failure to comply with statutory requirements of notice to municipal officers, before the commencement of an action.’ 187 N. Y. at page 41, 79 N. E. at page 864,11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391.

He quotes from Curry v. City of Buffalo, 135 N. Y. 366, 32 N. E. 80, as follows: ‘The whole matter of the maintenance of this class of actions was within the control of the Legislature. It could refuse a right of action against municipalities for such injuries, and it could impose any conditions precedent to the maintenance of such actions,’ and then says: ‘This statement of the rule was deliberate, and in my opinion, it is correct when the nature and functions of municipal corporations are considered. * * * These corporations are bodies politic; created by laws of the state for the purpose of administering the affairs of the incorporated territory. * * * The whole interests are the exclusive domain of the government itself, and the power of the Legislature over them is supreme and transcendent; except as restricted by the Constitution of the state. Their charters being granted for the better government of the particular districts, the right to insert such provisions as seemed to best subserve the public interest would seem, from the very nature of such institutions, to be inherent.’ 187 N. Y. at page 42, 79 N. E. at page 864,11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391.

He also says: ‘It seems very clear to me that, in the distribution, through charters, to municipalities of governmental powers and of administrative duties within the described territory, there is no limitation upon the regulative power of the Legislature. For the breach of a duty, imposed for the public benefit, it may grant, or deny, a remedy to an individual, who has sustained damage, and in granting a remedy impose conditions upon the right to enforce it. It seems to me that a thoughtful consideration of the nature of these public corporations and of the principles, which underlie their creation, leads, irresistibly, to the just conclusion that they can only be subjected to liabilities to the extent and in the manner that the charter permits, expressly or impliedly.’ 187 N. Y. at page 44, 79 N. E. at page 865,11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391.

The village of Saratoga Springs is incorporated by special charter. The charter was generally revised by chapter 220 of the Laws of 1866. In 1902 (Laws 1902, c. 506) an act was passed to provide for the appointment of sewer, water, and street commissioners of said village, and to prescribe their powers and duties, and by such act it was expressly provided that ‘the said village is hereby continued a separate road district, exempt from the superintendence and care of the commissioners of highways of the town of Saratoga Springs and the said commissioners are hereby constituted and declared to be commissioners of highways of the same, and the said commissioners shall have the exclusive power to lay out, alter or discontinue any street, highway, lane or alley in said village, and shall exercise all the powers and authority in reference to the streets, highways, lanes and alleys in said village that commissioners of highways of towns possess in relation to highways in their respective towns * * * and shall have the sole and exclusive care and supervision of all the streets, sidewalks, bridges, culverts, lanes and alleys of said village. In addition to the other powers and duties imposed by this act, it shall be the duty of said commissioners to maintain the roads, highways, avenues, streets, sidewalks, lanes, alleys, gutters, bridges and culverts of said village in good repair; to...