Larned v. City of Syracuse
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
That the action would lie, although no claim was made that the brick in ques- . tion were not as good as any that could be had, or that the price was too high, or that the common council had any evil motive in conducting the proceedings in the form adopted.
Read the full summary
That the action would lie, although no claim was made that the brick in ques- . tion were not as good as any that could be had, or that the price was too high, or that the common council had any evil motive in conducting the proceedings in the form adopted. Appeal by the defendants, Eugene A. Homer and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 31st day of December, 1895; upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Onondaga Special Term; also an appeal by the defendants, The City…
1Opinion of the Court
Follett, J.:
This action was begun October 25,1894, by a taxpayer of the city of Syracuse to restrain the defendants from contracting for paving that portion of Plum street between the-north line of Park avenue and the south line of Belden avenue, except tile intersection of West Genesee street.
The city of Syracuse, its mayor and clerk joined in an answer, and the defendants Eugene A. Homer, James M. Homer and Francis E. Van Camp (constituting the firm of Homer & Co.) answered together.
This case arose under the sections of the charter of the city of Syracuse, quoted in Smith v. The City of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. North River Sugar Refining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Boon v. City of UticaNew York Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- Terwilliger Land Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Sherrett v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Knowles v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1902
- Berghoffen v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1900