People v. Batchelor
New York Supreme Court
THE above suits were instituted to test the right of the defendants to the offices of clerks 'of the district courts of the city of Hew York, now held hy them, respectively.
Read the full summary
THE above suits were instituted to test the right of the defendants to the offices of clerks 'of the district courts of the city of Hew York, now held hy them, respectively. The complaint in the first cause alleges that Frederick W. Loew was, on the 18th of December, 1857, duly appointed to, and is entitled to, the office now held by the defendant Batchelor; and in the second suit, that at the same time Edward 0. McConnell was duly appointed to, and is entitled to the office now held by the defendant McPherson. The facts found by the special verdict are, that the defendants were duly…
1Opinion of the CourtDavies, P. J.
The only question which it is deemed necessary to consider is, whether the plaintiffs Loew and McConnell *312were duly and legally appointed "by the convention held on the 18th of December, 1857. They were undeniably so appointed, if all the aldermen were duly notified of that convention, although some of them failed to attend; or if it was not necessary to its legality that all the aldermen should have had notice of the meeting. It should be borne in mind, we think, in considering the question presented, that the privilege of attending was not that of the aldermen, but of the constituency they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Green v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- People ex rel. Haws v. WalkerNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- People ex rel. Upham v. WhitesideNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Britt v. LewisHamilton Circuit Court · 1898
- Britt v. LewisOhio Circuit Courts · 1898