American Metal Ceiling Co. v. New Hyde Park Fire District

91 Misc. 236, 154 N.Y.S. 661
CourtNew York County Courts
DecidedJune 15, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 91 Misc. 236 (American Metal Ceiling Co. v. New Hyde Park Fire District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Metal Ceiling Co. v. New Hyde Park Fire District, 91 Misc. 236, 154 N.Y.S. 661 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1915).

Opinion

Niemann, J.

'The liens are five in number, as follows:

The American Metal Ceiling Company for $730, for metal work, filed August 11, 1914; Nassau Lumber Company for $1,349.32, for lumber for the erection of the fire house, filed September 3, 1914; George E. Christ for $810, for plumbing and heating, filed September 30, 1914; George E. Christ for $272, for the erection of a slag roof, leaders and trimming, filed September 30, 1914; George E. Christ for $1,069.40, for labor, cement, hardware and necessary material to complete the building, filed September 30, 1914.

The New Hyde Park fire district by a vote of the people authorized expenditure of $5,000 for the erection of a fire house, and on the 16th day of December, 1913, the said fire commissioners issued bonds of said district and raised the said sum of $5,000.

On the 25th day of May, 1914, the board of fire commissioners of said district entered into a written contract with one J. E. Heidtmann for the construction of a fire house in accordance with certain plans and specifications to erect the building at a cost of $4,994.

This contract was made by Jesse E. Heidtmann in the name of John E. Heidtmann and the court decided upon the trial that the use of the name of John E. [238]*238Heidtmann by the said Jesse H. Heidtmann was unauthorized and that the said Jesse H. Heidtmann was the real contractor.

On June 30,1914, the electors of said district passed the further resolution authorizing the appropriation of $2,000 for the purpose of installing the necessary plumbing, metal work and heating in said fire house and in pursuance to- this resolution the said fire commissioners issued and sold bonds for said sum.

On the 23d day of July, 1914, a second contract was made between the said fire commissioners and the said Heidtmann for the installation of plumbing, metal work and heating apparatus in said fire house for the sum of $1,714.

The terms of this second contract were written as an addendum on the original contract and signed by the same parties. The contractor entered upon the performance of the first contract, but the 11th day of August, 1914, abandoned the work and left for parts unknown.

After the contractor abandoned his contract, the defendant George E. Christ entered upon the premises with the consent of the said fire commissioner and completed the building, for which he filed his lien for $1,06-9.40. He also put the plumbing and heating plant into the building, for which he filed his lien for $810, and the plaintiff, American Metal Ceiling Company, Inc., put in the metal work, for which it has filed its lien for $730. The defendant Nassau Lumber Company furnished lumber for the erection of the building under the first contract and it filed its lien for $1,349.32 for such lumber.

It was stipulated in open court upon the trial by all the parties that the several liens filed therein were in proper and legal form, so that I will not consider any objection now made to the validity of any of said [239]*239liens. It was also agreed upon the trial that the fund now in the hands of the fire commissioners is $1,994.

This sum is the net proceeds of the sale of the bonds authorized by the second resolution appropriating $2,000 for the specific purpose of installing necessary plumbing, metal work and heating in said fire house. The fund of $2,000 must be applied in payment of the contract balance of the plumbing, metal work and heating and cannot be diverted to or used for any other purpose.

It is provided by section 6 of the General Municipal Law (Birdseye, Cumming & Gilbert’s Cons. Laws of New York, Laws of 1909), as follows: “A funded debt shall not be contracted by a municipal corporation, except for a specific object, expressly stated in the ordinance or resolution proposing it. ’ ’

The fire district by this second resolution raised $2,000 for the specific object or purpose of installing the necessary plumbing, metal work and heating in said fire house. A funded debt was thereby created within the meaning of the above section, and to divert the proceeds of the sale of the bonds for any other purpose would be illegal and unauthorized. This fund can be expended only for the specific object specified in the resolution. Swift v. Mayor, 83 N. Y. 528; People ex rel. Rohr v. Owens, 110 App. Div. 30; Davidson v. Village of White Plains, 121 id. 287.

It is well settled that the money raised and appropriated by a municipal corporation for a specific purpose is regarded as being still in the treasury applicable to the payment of the debt incurred for the purpose for which the fund was appropriated and this is so even if the money has been diverted to other purposes. People v. Owens, 110 App. Div. 30; Palmer v. City of Brooklyn, 11 Misc. Rep. 459; People ex rel. Darmat v. Comptroller, 77 N. Y. 45;

[240]*240In the case of Swift v. Mayor, supra, the court, speaking of an appropriation for removing garbage from the streets, said (p. 536): “As before shown, the only remedy of the plaintiff was to follow this fund and the law impressed upon it a trust for the payment of his claim out of it. It was raised for the express purpose of paying obligations incurred in cleaning the streets. It was placed by the finance department in the hands of the police department for that purpose and no other; the duty.of so applying it was imposed by law, and the creditors had the legal right to look to that fund for their payment and in fact were confined to the security which it afforded them.”

In the case of People ex rel. Rohr v. Owens, supra, the court, by Jenks, P. J., said (p. 31): “ The learned counsel for the appellant states in his printed points: ‘ The money which was raised for the purpose of paying said draft was diverted from its proper purpose to the payment of other drafts, and no part of the money came into the official hands of the present treasurer. ’ His contention is that under such circumstances this proceeding will not lie. As the money was raised and appropriated for a specific purpose, I think that the eye of the law still regards it as in the treasury, and applicable to the discharge of the draft, and that this case must be decided upon the authority of People ex rel. Donmat v. Comptroller (77 N. Y. 45). See, too, People ex rel. Pennell v. Treanor (15 App. Div. 508).” See, also, opinion of Attorney-General of the State of New York (Reports of the Attorney-General for the year 1912, p. 472), wherein it is stated that section 6 of the General Municipal Law contemplates that each bond issue shall be devoted to a specific object and that a separation of any part of the proceeds of the sale of said bonds and the application thereof to any other purpose would be illegal and unauthorized.

[241]*241I am of the opinion that under the foregoing authorities the lien of the plaintiff for installing the metal work, amounting to the sum of $730, with interest, and the lien of the defendant George E. Christ for installing the plumbing and heating, amounting to the sum of $810, with interest, must be paid out of said fund, raised by authority of said second resolution according to their priority.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Clark v. Bailey
44 P.2d 740 (Montana Supreme Court, 1935)
N. P. Nelson Iron Works, Inc. v. Berry
237 A.D. 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Silliman & Godfrey Co. v. Town of Westport
150 A. 502 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1930)
State ex rel. Western Bridge & Construction Co. v. Marsh
196 N.W. 130 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 Misc. 236, 154 N.Y.S. 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-metal-ceiling-co-v-new-hyde-park-fire-district-nycountyct-1915.