Legal Opinion
Sheehan v. Mayor of New York
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 15, 1897PublishedCited by 2 opinions
. Action to recover for services under employment by the park, department.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
The plaintiff was employed as a laborer by the -department of parles ¡at $75 per month, and sues to recover what he terms a balance of salary as an incident to his officé. The difficulty is that the plaintiff held no office, but Was merely a menial employee (Sullivan v. Mayor, 53 N. Y. 652; Costello v. Mayor, 63 id. 48; Olmstead v. Mayor, 42 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 488; Meyers v. Mayor, 69 Hun, 291), so that the rule that salary is an incident is inapplicable. This leads to the inquiry • whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover on any other theory. On December 22, 1889, the day on which the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gregory v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Lethbridge v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Myers v. MayorNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Doyle v. . Rector, Etc., Trinity ChurchNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Cook v. Mayor of New YorkThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Vines v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Trestrail v. Drewes, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1935