Rensselaer County NyArchives Court.....People, Ex Rel Patrick Vaughn Vs. Board Of Supervisors 1889
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ny/nyfiles.htm
************************************************
File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 2, 2008, 12:32 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases - New York
Written: 1889

Third Department, May Term, 1889.

THE PEOPLE ex rel. PATRICK VAUGHN and Another, Appellants, v. THE BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS OF RENSSELAER COUNTY, Respondents.

Committee of board of supervisors — authority to make contracts for county work.

In proceedings to compel by mandamus the audit of the amount due under an 
alleged contract, signed by the chairman of a committee of the board of 
supervisors of Rensselaer county, in which the board of supervisors was recited 
to be the contracting party, it appeared that the committee was authorized by 
the board to advertise for sealed proposals for certain work, including the work 
in question, to be let to the lowest responsible bidder; that the committee 
advertised for proposals, and the relators were the lowest bidders thereunder, 
and the contract for the work, the grading and building fences on the court-
house grounds, was thereupon made with them by the chairman of the committee. 
After the contract was let a resolution was offered in the board of supervisors 
reciting that such advertisement for proposals had been made and contracts had 
been awarded thereunder, but it did not appear what action had been taken by the 
board upon the resolution.

The contract was repudiated by the next board of supervisors, which audited the 
claim of the relators at about one-half the price fixed by the contract for the 
services rendered.

Held, that as the resolution appointing the committee did not authorize the 
making of the contract, and as it did not appear what action had been taken by 
the board, upon the subsequent resolution reciting that the contract was made, 
that the contract was invalid and the relators were not entitled to a mandamus 
to compel payment thereunder. 

Semble, that, in so far as a board of supervisors exercises governmental 
functions, such as the imposition of a tax or the adoption or the ordering of 
any act in the nature of a governmental or administrative regulation, the whole 
body must act; but, in so far as it acts as a mere business corporation, it may 
delegate the execution of its mechanical and physical work to agents in the same 
manner as any other corporation.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered in the Rensselaer 
county clerk's office June 22, 1888, upon the trial at the Rensselaer Circuit 
before the court and jury, of the issue joined by the return of the defendants 
to an alternative writ of mandamus.

At the close of the relator's evidence the court dismissed the writ. The 
relators had presented a bill to the defendants for audit for building 1,116 
feet of fence, at two dollars and ninety-five cents per foot, claiming to have 
built it under a contract with the defendants at that price. The defendants 
audited the claim at one dollar and fifty cents per foot.

James Lansing, for the appellants.

E. L. Fursman, for the respondents.

Landon, J.:

The trial court found, in substance, that the relators had no valid contract 
with the board of supervisors under which they sought an audit at the alleged 
contract-price, and now seek by mandamus to compel such an audit. The relators 
did have a contract signed by the chairman of the committee of the board of 
supervisors on lands and buildings, in which the board is recited as the 
contracting party. An examination of the authority vested by the board in this 
committee shows that it was limited to authority "to advertise for sealed 
proposals "for certain work" to be let to the lowest responsible bidder, the 
building committee, together with the architect, to furnish the necessary plans 
and specifications." The building committee was also instructed "to include in 
their proposals for work at the county-house the building of necessary fences." 
The architect made plans and specifications for these fences and left them with 
the committee. The committee advertised for proposals. The relators submitted to 
the committee proposals for building the fences at the county-house. The 
committee received other proposals. They compared them and found the relators to 
be the lowest bidders, and, thereupon, the chairman made the contract with them, 
under which they performed the work and furnished the materials. After the 
contract was let a supervisor offered a resolution in the board, preceded by a 
preamble, reciting that "the building committee of this board have, by direction 
of the board, gone on, advertised for proposals and awarded contracts for 
certain work of grading, building fences, etc., on the county farm, to certain 
contractors, and such contractors have commenced such work and nearly completed 
the same," the resolution directing the borrowing of money to pay for the work. 
The preamble and resolution were offered to show notice to the board. What 
action was taken by the board upon the resolution was not offered to be shown. 
The contract-price was two dollars and ninty-five cents per lineal foot. A 
subsequent board of supervisors repudiated the contract as unauthorized and 
excessive, and audited the claim of the relators at one dollar and fifty cents 
per lineal foot. The building committee consisted of three persons. Mr. Burke 
was the chairman. Mr. De Freest, one of the committee, said he would sign it, 
but did not do so, The other members did not attend any meeting of the committee 
in connection with the award of the contract to the relators. 

It is contended by the defendant that the board of supervisors could not 
delegate to a committee the power to approve the plans, details and price of the 
work, including the making of the contract for building the fence. It is not 
easy to draw the exact line between those duties which are, by the statute, 
committed to the judgment and discretion of the entire board, and whose 
performance, therefore, cannot be delegated to a committee or agent, and those 
purely ministerial and executive duties which the board may delegate to a 
committee, or even to an employee or servant. Thompson v. Schermerhorn (6 N. Y., 
92), and Birdsall v. Clark (73 id., 73), show that acts which embrace the plan 
of a local improvement, to result in a tax paid by the owners of property along 
the line of the improvement, cannot be delegated. Edwards v. City of Watertown 
(24 Hun, 428) is to the effect that a common council may authorize a committee 
to buy the necessary furniture for its chamber.

I incline to the opinion that, in so far as such a body exercises governmental 
functions, such as the imposition of a tax or the adoption or ordering of any 
act in the nature of a governmental or administrative regulation, the whole body 
must act; but, in so far as it is a mere business corporation, it may delegate 
the execution of its mechanical and physical work to agents, like any other 
corporation. I should think the building of a board fence around a farm lot such 
a piece of business. But it is not necessary to decide this question, for the 
reason that in this case the committee on lands and buildings were not 
authorized to enter into any contract. They were authorized to take all the 
steps preliminary to the execution of the contract, and no more. The preamble 
accompanying a resolution, which was subsequently offered in the board, falls 
short of a ratification of the action of the committee, because no action upon 
the resolution is shown, and hence no ratification is shown. Failure to show 
what was done with the resolution is a failure to show ratification. The board 
did something or nothing, and we are not advised which.

The relators, not having a valid contract, are not entitled to a mandamus to 
compel an audit upon the basis of a contract-price. All they could ask was that 
the board should audit their bill at what their work was reasonably worth. This 
the board did, and that audit is a final judgment between the relators and the 
board, and conclusive because rendered upon the only right the relators could 
establish. (Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N. Y., 222, 232.)

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Learned, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of New 
York. Marcus T. Hun, Reporter. Volume LIX, 1889, HUN 52. Banks & Company, 
Albany, NY. 1901.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ny/rensselaer/court/people788gwl.txt
This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/nyfiles/

File size: 8.9 Kb