MATTER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL SCHOOL, N.Y., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

C.E. Miller, for appellants. R. O'Gorman, for the mayor, etc., of the city of New York, respondents.

Judges

Charles A. Rapallo

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a petition to vacate an assessment related to the construction of a sewer in the city of New York. The dispute arises under the act of April 12, 1865, which prohibits the construction of any sewer or drain unless it conforms to a general plan devised by the Croton board for the sewerage of the relevant district. The assessment at issue was made for a sewer contracted for before the general plan was devised. The Court of Appeals reviews whether the act of 1865 applies to sewer construction projects initiated before the act’s passage and whether the assessment is valid under that statute.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the act of April 12, 1865, prohibiting sewer construction except in accordance with a general plan, applies to sewers for which proposals had been advertised and bids opened prior to the act's passage.
Whether a contract or vested right acquired before the act of 1865 can prevent the legislature from prohibiting sewer construction under the act.
Whether the act should be construed to apply only to sewers contracted for after its passage in order to avoid interfering with vested contractor rights.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

The act of April 12, 1865, should not apply to sewer construction proposals advertised and bids opened before the act's passage, implying a reservation for pre-existing contracts or rights.

Appellants' Arguments

The act contains no such reservation and was intended to secure a harmonious sewerage system, which would be undermined if pre-existing contracts were exempted.
The legislature retains the power to regulate public works despite any prior contract or vested rights.
The act applies to all sewers constructed after its passage, regardless of when contracts were made.
Restricting the act to sewers contracted for after its passage would defeat its purpose of preventing inconsistent sewer construction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The Matter of Blodgett (decided October 24, 1870)	Assessment for a sewer contracted before the general plan was devised is void under the 1865 act.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that the assessment in the present case is void unless the respondents could show the 1865 act does not apply to pre-act contracts, which the court rejected.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the absolute prohibition in the 1865 act on constructing sewers not in accordance with the general plan devised by the Croton board. It emphasized that the act contains no language exempting sewers for which proposals were made or contracts entered into before the act's passage. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the act should be limited to sewers contracted for after the act, reasoning that such a limitation would undermine the act’s purpose of securing a harmonious sewerage system. The court also distinguished the question of whether the city might be liable for breach of contract damages from the legislature's power to regulate public works, holding that the legislature's regulatory authority cannot be overridden by prior contracts. Thus, the court concluded that the act applies to all sewers constructed after its passage, regardless of prior bids or contracts, and that the assessment was therefore invalid under the controlling precedent of The Matter of Blodgett.

Holding and Implications

The order appealed from is reversed, and the assessment is vacated with costs.

The direct effect of this decision is to invalidate the assessment for sewer construction that was contracted for before the 1865 act but constructed in violation of its requirements. The ruling reinforces the legislature’s authority to regulate municipal public works through comprehensive planning statutes. No new precedent beyond the reaffirmation of The Matter of Blodgett was established.

Show full summary ...

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE NEW YORK PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL PUBLIC SCHOOL et al. TO VACATE AN ASSESSMENT.

RAPALLO, J.

By the act of April 12, 1865, the construction of any sewer or drain in the city of New York is absolutely prohibited, unless such sewer or drain shall be in accordance with a general plan, devised by the Croton board, for the sewerage of the particular district in which such sewer or drain is proposed to be constructed. And in The Matter of Blodgett (decided October 24, 1870), this court decided, that an assessment for a sewer contracted for, before such a general plan had been devised was void. That decision must control this case, unless the respondents can maintain the position, that the act of April 12, 1865, does not apply where proposals for the work had been advertised for, and bids opened, before the passage of the act. But we do not think that position tenable. There is no such reservation in the act itself, nor do we think that such a reservation can be intended. The manifest design of the act, was to secure a harmonious system of sewerage for the entire district; and the reservation sought to be introduced, might have the effect of interfering with the general plan, so as to defeat the very object which the act was designed to secure.

It is not material to pass upon the question of the constitutionality of the act of 1861 (chap. 308), or whether, on the opening of the bids, the lowest bidder acquired a vested right to a contract for the construction of the sewer. Assuming that he did, or even that the city had entered into a formal contract with him before the passage of the act of 1865, such contract would not deprive the legislature of the power to prohibit the construction of the sewer.

Whether the city would be discharged by the act, from liability to the contractor for damages for the breach of the contract, is a different question. But the power of the legislature to regulate the manner in which public works of this description shall be constructed, cannot be foreclosed by any contract of a municipal corporation for the doing of the work.

The act of 1865, by its terms, applies to all sewers thereafter to be constructed.

It is claimed, that in order to prevent its interfering with vested rights of contractors, it should be restricted, by construction, to sewers thereafter to be contracted for. In view of the special object sought to be attained by the act, we do not think such a construction admissible. Its clear intent, was to prevent the building of any sewer, not in accordance with the general plan directed to be devised. This intent would be defeated, should the courts take the liberty of construing the act so as to sanction other sewers, which might be found totally inconsistent with the general plan when adopted, simply for the purpose of protecting contracts entered into prior to the passage of the act.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and the assessment vacated, with costs.

All concur.

Order reversed.

MATTER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL SCHOOL