Legal Opinion
Austin v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 5, 1932PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Cardozo, Ch. J.
The plaintiff served the city of New York at times during the years 1926 to 1929 as a foreman of bridgemen and riveters. The uncontradicted evidence is that the prevailing rate of wages for bridge-men and riveters was $12 a day in the first half of 1926, and $14 a day thereafter. The uncontradicted evidence also is that the prevailing rate of wages for foremen was $3 a day additional. This additional wage the plaintiff never got.
Section 220 of the Labor Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 31) provides that “ each contract to which * * * a municipal corporation * * * is a party and which may…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Kirby Lumber CoSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Surace v. DannaNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Matter of StrykerNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by55 opinions
- People v. NebbiaNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Franklin v. State Ex Rel. Alabama State Milk Control BoardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Matter of Gaston v. TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Wood v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Matter of Heaney v. McGoldrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.