Boyce v. Russell
New York Supreme Court
Streeter having an unliquidated claim against the county óf Washington, assigned it for á váluabTe considera to Dot7) who presented the claim to the board of stipend sot's And it was audited by tliém At f 193 95. Doty, at the some time, gave notice to the bounty treasurer and the stipervisors, that hé was the assignee.
Read the full summary
Streeter having an unliquidated claim against the county óf Washington, assigned it for á váluabTe considera to Dot7) who presented the claim to the board of stipend sot's And it was audited by tliém At f 193 95. Doty, at the some time, gave notice to the bounty treasurer and the stipervisors, that hé was the assignee. On the 6th jan. 1823, ° , , ’ he presénted the Account, As audited, to Boyce; the bblléctor of Fort Ann, who paid it, and on the 11th Feb. 1824,. in his settlement with Russell, the county treasurer, claimed have A credit of this sum. It was credited Accordingly, except 75 09,…
1Per curiam
The town collector has ño right to pAy off claims upon the county in this manner. Hé must pay all the ihoñey which he collects to the county treasürér, éxcépt in those cases wherein he is otherwise directed by statute. Doty might have had his action against the treasurer had he refused to pay him without sufficient cause. The rule is, that when the party has a remedy by action, this Court will not interfere by mandamus. Boyce does not come for relief as a public officer ; for he has travelled beyond the line of his duty ; and we must regard his acts as those of Any other individual;
Motion…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Mygatt v. Supervisors of Chenango CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- People Ex Rel. Fiedler v. MeadNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- State ex rel. Bornefeld v. RombauerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- People ex rel. Port Chester Savings Bank v. CromwellNew York Supreme Court · 1885