Blackman v. . Riley
New York Court of Appeals
The presumption that a public officer, upon whom an official duty has been imposed by statute, has performed that duty, does not authorize a presumption that a committee appointed by the common council of a city to see that private persons perform some act, attended to the business so intrusted to it, and that the private persons performed the act.
Read the full summary
The presumption that a public officer, upon whom an official duty has been imposed by statute, has performed that duty, does not authorize a presumption that a committee appointed by the common council of a city to see that private persons perform some act, attended to the business so intrusted to it, and that the private persons performed the act. Reported below, 68 Hun, 521. Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made March 31, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a…
1Opinion of the CourtPeckham, J.
In 1759 Cornelius Cosine, the elder, was the •owner of a farm of about two hundred acres, the northern and .southern boundaries of which were nearly, but not quite, coincident with the lines of what are now .Fifty-seventh and Fifty-third streets, in the city of Hew York. The Hor th river formed the western boundary, while the eastern was formed by what was termed in the descriptions' of the day, the “ common lands ” of Hew York. The Bloomingdale road, running about north and south, cut through the farm, leaving land on each side of it. It ran a little distance west of and parallel with the…
2Cited by27 opinions
- Bradley v. . CraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Mott v. . EnoNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Lane v. LamkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Gottfried v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1960
- Smith v. StaceyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.