People v. Kingsley
New York Supreme Court
Appeals from orders made at Special Term, changing the place of trial. The actions were both brought in the city and county of .New York (in both the defendants were, some of them, public officers in the county of Kings, and the others certain contractors for what is known as the Hempstead reservoir), to recover from them certain moneys, alleged to have been obtained by such contractors by the corrupt collusion and confederation of such officers, with the said contractors.
Read the full summary
Appeals from orders made at Special Term, changing the place of trial. The actions were both brought in the city and county of .New York (in both the defendants were, some of them, public officers in the county of Kings, and the others certain contractors for what is known as the Hempstead reservoir), to recover from them certain moneys, alleged to have been obtained by such contractors by the corrupt collusion and confederation of such officers, with the said contractors. The following is the opinion of Barrett, J., referred to in the opinion of Brady, J., below : Barrett, J. 1. The question…
1Opinion of the Court
Beady, J.:
It is necessary to add but little to the opinion of Justice Barrett, rendered by him on deciding the motion to change the venue in these cases. Although acts of fraudulent combination are charged against the defendants to accomplish a condition of things leading to the formation of the contract ultimately made with Kingsley and Keeney, nevertheless the gravamen of the complaint begins with the conduct of the defendants while acting officially, because prior to that time the alleged scheme had not been consummated, and could not be without the contract which was made. The same…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hubbard v. National Protection InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- International Life Assurance Co. v. SweetlandNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Moore v. GardnerNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Amory v. AmoryNew York Supreme Court · 1866