Fitch v. Hay
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Wellington Hay and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plain tiff,'entered ¡m the office of the clerk of the county of Clinton on the IOth day of July, 1905, upon the report of a referee.- . ■ These defendants, with James H. O’Heil, Owen W. O’Heil, Heb son Duval, Harvey S. Haff, George Gray and the board of supervisors of the county of Clinton were made defendants in an action by the plaintiff.to restrain the payment.of…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants, Wellington Hay and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plain tiff,'entered ¡m the office of the clerk of the county of Clinton on the IOth day of July, 1905, upon the report of a referee.- . ■ These defendants, with James H. O’Heil, Owen W. O’Heil, Heb son Duval, Harvey S. Haff, George Gray and the board of supervisors of the county of Clinton were made defendants in an action by the plaintiff.to restrain the payment.of certain claims audited by the- appellants against the town of Mooers, in the said county of Clinton; James H. O’Heil, Owen…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.:
In People ex rel. Steward v. Railroad Comrs. (160 N. Y. 212), Chief Judge Parker, writing for the Court of Appeals, says: “ It is the general rule that a court or board exercising judicial functions by permission of some statute, has no interest in maintaining its determination, and, therefore, can neither appeal from an order of the court reversing the proceedings, nor be heard on the appeal.” Within this rule of practice it is difficult to see what interest these appellants have in reversing this judgment upon the merits. They are not affected whether the judgment stands or falls.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People Ex Rel. Steward v. Board of Railroad CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kirchoff v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933