Legal Opinion
Cole v. Rose
New York City Court
Decided June 15, 1883PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Motion for leave to discontinue without costs.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
— The plaintiff and his associates (the harhor masters) were appointéd under the Laws of 1862 (chap. 487), and the action was brought to recover a penalty given by •that statute. The plaintiff recovered a judgment, which was reversed upon appeal with the award of a new trial. Since then, i. e., May 4, 1883, -the act under which the plaintiff and his associates derived their authority was repealed and the offices created by the said act were abolished. The penalties imposed by said act are in consequence not recoverable, even in pending actions, as the repealing act contains no saving clause…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Yeaton and Others, of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo v. The United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Jones v. . JuddNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- De Barante v. . DeyermandNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Washburn v. FranklinNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Staiger v. SchultzNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
3Cited by5 opinions
- Agar v. TibbettsNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Beardsley v. New York, Lake Erie & Western RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Clossey v. AyersNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Layman v. New York Bank Note Co.The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1892
- Beardsley v. . N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900