Young v. City of Rochester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1Opinion of the Court
Hiscock, J.:
Plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $512.50, with interest, as «salary which became due to him as an alderman of the city of Rochester during part of his term.
We think he should be allowed to recover.
The facts involved in the controversy are few and very simple. Plaintiff was elected as an alderman of one of the wards in the defendant in November, 1899, and qualified and entered upon the *82discharge of his duties as such in January, 1900. His term of office was for two years. At and for some time subsequent to the date of his election no salary was attached to the office. April…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fisk v. Jefferson Police JurySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Healey v. DudleyNew York Supreme Court · 1871
- Nash v. . White's Bank of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
3Cited by6 opinions
- O'Neil v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Diedrich v. WarrenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Fogel v. SSR Realty AssociatesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
- Bareham v. Board of SupervisorsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Betts v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.