Mayor of New-York v. Ordrenan
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an .actioij , of debt. for 3,000 dollars, for certain penalties; The'declaration ■contained, -three counts. The first. count stated, -.that by an act of the. legislature' passed the second. . ' ' .. ' X •' v " 1806, entitled “art act for the better government of of Á the city of New-York, and .to grant certain additional powers .dnd ,rights- to the mayor, aldermen,, and commonalty thereof,”' '&G- (sess, 29. c.' 126. s., 13.). . tlie ..plaintiffs were:';empo\vered to…
Read the full summary
THIS was an .actioij , of debt. for 3,000 dollars, for certain penalties; The'declaration ■contained, -three counts. The first. count stated, -.that by an act of the. legislature' passed the second. . ' ' .. ' X •' v " 1806, entitled “art act for the better government of of Á the city of New-York, and .to grant certain additional powers .dnd ,rights- to the mayor, aldermen,, and commonalty thereof,”' '&G- (sess, 29. c.' 126. s., 13.). . tlie ..plaintiffs were:';empo\vered to pass, anal' -to' provide, for .the,due execution of, .ordinances, as they may deem, proper, for ttie;pi‘evention of…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
In deciding on this demurrer, the court confines itself to the manner of executing the power conferred by the statute, and,to *124the consideration of thé general' powers of the. corporation, under their charters. We do not, at present, intend to express any opinion,whether, únder the act,of 1806, the,corporation cotq¿¡ impose apenalty beyond the forfeiture of the powder; for-admitting that they could both.forfeit the powder; and impose a pecuniary penalty, wé are of opinion that the .power conferred by' the act has not been well or properly executed,
• The’.act, in.-authorizing the. imposition of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re SnowSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Gosselink v. CampbellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- People v. EricksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Commonwealth v. WilkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876