Vacheron v. City of New York
New York Supreme Court
Action to recover for services in sprinkling roads in the borough of Queens from August 1 to Hovember 1, 1899. The services were done under a written contract between the plaintiff and the county of Queens by its board of supervisors, made on July 6, 1897, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sprinkle certain county roads in Queens county from August 1 to Hovember 1 in each year for ten years, viz., from August 1, 1897, to Hovember 1, 1907, and the" county, agreed to;pay a…
Read the full summary
Action to recover for services in sprinkling roads in the borough of Queens from August 1 to Hovember 1, 1899. The services were done under a written contract between the plaintiff and the county of Queens by its board of supervisors, made on July 6, 1897, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sprinkle certain county roads in Queens county from August 1 to Hovember 1 in each year for ten years, viz., from August 1, 1897, to Hovember 1, 1907, and the" county, agreed to;pay a specified sum a mile monthly.
1Opinion of the Court
Gaynor, J.(1) I do not see how the objection that the plaintiff cannot maintain an action to collect his claim (if it be valid), but that he must collect it by presenting it for audit, and compelling its audit by mandamus, if necessary, can be' good. Why should that be so % The defendant, as is the case with cities and villages generally, is given the power and means of auditing claims presented against it. This is essential in order that it may safely pay such claims. But since when has the suggestion arisen that a claimant is compelled to resort to such audit in order to- collect his *422claim?…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Osterhoudt v. . RigneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Matter of FreelNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Hendrickson v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Kennedy v. County of QueensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Albrecht v. Queens CountyNew York Supreme Court · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Manley v. ScottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Picket Publishing Co. v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Town of Tempe v. CorbellArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- Knowles v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1902