Troy Press Co. v. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

94 A.D. 514, 88 N.Y.S. 115
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 94 A.D. 514 (Troy Press Co. v. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Troy Press Co. v. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 94 A.D. 514, 88 N.Y.S. 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinion

Chase, J.:

Have the members of boards-of supervisors the power to designate newspapers to publish the session laws and concurrent resolutions of the Legislature for a period extending more than one year ? This is the first question requiring an answer on this appeal.

The period of time for which newspapers are to be designated is not expressly stated in the statute. The intention of the statute, however, cannot be reasonably doubted. The purpose of publishing the session laws and concurrent resolutions of the Legislature is to give to the people of the State notice of their enactment and of the provisions thereof. Every person is presumed to know the law and the earliest and fullest opportunity for reading new statutes is desirable. That every person,, so far as practicable, may have an opportunity to read the laws of a general nature it is provided that they shall be published in each county of the State, and it is also provided that all laws of a local nature shall be published in each of the counties interested in the same (Laws of 1845, chap. 280, §§ 1, 2, as amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 715), and as a further means of bringing the laws to the attention of the greatest number of people section 19 of the County Law [infra), also provides that the publication shall be made in two newspapers fairly representing the political parties of the members of the board of supervisors of the county representing respectively each of the two principal, political parties into which the people of the county are divided, and in determining the newspapers that so fairly represent such political parties, regard must be had to advocacy by such paper of the principles of its party and its support of the State and National nominees thereof and to its regular and general circulation in the towns of the county.

After the designation of a newspaper has been once lawfully signed and filed it cannot be revoked. (People v. Supervisors of Monroe County, 60 Hun, 328.) If such a designation can extend for more than one year there would seem to be no limit to the [518]*518period for which it might be extended, at least if the term of office of supervisors should be correspondingly extended.

It would be possible for the owner of a newspaper so lawfully designated to sell such newspaper and by reason of such, change of ownership or by reason of a change in the. political principles of an owner, such newspaper might at a subsequent State or National election, within the term of such designation, advocate the principles of a party other than the one of the members of the board of supervisors so designating it. It would also be possible that the political sentiments of the county would so change, as shown by a subsequent State or National election within the period for which such newspaper was designated, that the representatives of a third party in the board of supervisors, which at the time of the designation was a minority party in the county, might become the^representatives of a majority party in the county, and thus entitle them and the people df the county to have the session laws and concurrent resolutions published in a newspaper fairly representing such political party that had thus become one of the two majority or principal parties into which the people of the county were divided. The whole spirit of the statute, considered in connection. with the purpose: thereof, requires that the publication of the session laws and concurrent resolutions shall be made with reference to the current year, and the sentiments and political principles of the people of the county and its newspapers therein at the time of the designation and of such publication, and a designation which extends for more than one year is so contrary to the spirit and intent of the statute that it should not be made, and it is not within the terms of the statute.

The language of the present statute relating to the designation of newspapers (County Law [Laws of 1892, chap. 686], § 19, as amd. by Laws of 1900, chap. 400) as well as that of all previous statutes relating thereto is consistent with an annual designation of newspapers at the regular fall session of the several boards of supervisors following the general election, and inconsistent with any other or different practice or procedure. The practice of designating newspapers to publish the session laws and concurrent resolutions annually after the general election has been universal.

By said section 19 of the County Law it is expressly provided [519]*519that any designation of a paper or papers made contrary to the provisions of this section shall be void.” The designation of the Troy Observer on October 14, 1902, so far as it relates to the year 1904, is void, and the Democratic members of the board of supervisors in 1903 were required by the terms of said section to designate a newspaper representing their party for publishing the session laws and concurrent resolutions of the Legislature for the year 1904. It is contended by the respondents that by chapter 124 of the Laws of 1901 the annual meeting of the board of supervisors of Rensselaer county is held on the second Tuesday of January in each year and that as a Democratic newspaper was not designated at the annual meeting in January, 1903, or at a special meeting called for the purpose there was no authority in the Democratic members of the board of supervisors to file a designation of a newspaper on December 1, 1903.

Assuming that under section 3 of chapter 280 of the Laws of 1845, as amended by chapter 715 of the Laws of 1892, the annual meeting of the board of supervisors therein referred to, so far as the county of Rensselaer is concerned, is the meeting in January of each year, the contention of the respondents in regard to the authority of the Democratic members of said board of supervisors on the 1st day of December, 1903, depends upon whether said section 3 is now in force.

Where there is no direct repugnancy or inconsistency between the earlier and the later law, there may in some cases be an implied repeal. This result follows where the later act. revises, amends and sums up the whole law on the particular subject to which it relates, covering all the ground treated of in the earlier statute, and adding new or different provisions, and thus plainly shows that it was intended to supersede any and all prior enactments on that subject-matter and to furnish for the future in itself alone the whole and only system of statute law applicable to the subject. (Black on Interpretation of Laws, 116.)

A later statute covering the same subject-matter and embracing new provisions .operates to repeal the prior act, although the two acts are not in express terms repugnant. (McDermott v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 85 Hun, 422; People, v. Jaehne, 103 N. Y. 182.)

The Legislature of 1892 passed chapter 682 of the Laws of 1892, known as the Legislative Law, and section 48 thereof as originally [520]*520enacted and as amended by chapter 182 of the Laws of 1902 provides that the Secretary of State shall send to each newspaper designated by the members of boards of supervisors copies of the laws and concurrent resolutions to be published by such newspapers, and section 80 of the statute of 1892 expressly repeals chapter 280 of the Laws of 1845, and also the several amendments thereto; so far as they affect the question herein. This act by its terms was not to take effect until October 1, 1892. (See § 81.) It was approved by the Governor May 18, 1892.

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

Related

Steuben Advocate, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors
5 Misc. 2d 627 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Grose-Peters, Inc. v. Kinns
278 A.D. 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Leach v. Kenyon
146 Misc. 571 (New York Supreme Court, 1933)
City of Schenectady v. Schenectady Railway Co.
118 Misc. 676 (New York Supreme Court, 1922)
In re Seeley
114 Misc. 633 (New York Supreme Court, 1921)
Obelisk Waterproof Co. v. Cloher
14 Misc. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1920)
Fulton County Pub. Co. v. Common Council of City of Johns Town
157 N.Y.S. 1058 (New York Supreme Court, 1916)
People ex rel. Utica Sunday Tribune Co. v. Hugo
93 Misc. 618 (New York Supreme Court, 1916)
Pearsall v. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
162 A.D. 38 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
In re Pearsall
146 N.Y.S. 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
People ex rel. Rathburn v. Tabor
140 N.Y.S. 803 (New York Supreme Court, 1913)
State ex rel. Cowles v. Schively
114 P. 901 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
City of Buffalo v. . Lewis
84 N.E. 809 (New York Court of Appeals, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D. 514, 88 N.Y.S. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-press-co-v-clerk-of-the-board-of-supervisors-nyappdiv-1904.