People ex rel. Stuart v. Edmonds
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order made at a special term, refusing to . grant a mandamus against the defendant. The material facts are stated in the following opinion, delivered at the special term.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from an order made at a special term, refusing to . grant a mandamus against the defendant. The material facts are stated in the following opinion, delivered at the special term. Clerke, J. “ This is an application made on behalf of Sidney H. Stuart, one of the police justices of the city of New York, for a peremptory mandamus, commanding the chamberlain, in his capacity of treasurer of the county, ex officio, to pay him the sum of $>666.66, for a compensation directed to be paid to him by the resolution of the hoard of supervisors of the 27th of December, 1853, for extra services. The…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Morris, J.
Police justices of the city and county of Hew York are county officers. The services rendered by them are rendered for the county, and are chargeable to the county as contingencies. The salaries of police justices are (by an act of the legislature) to be established by the board of supervisors. The city chamberlain is, ex officio, county treasurer, and it is his duty, and not that of the comptroller of the city, to pay all county charges legally audited and allowed, or directed to be paid, by the board of supervisors.
A mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ray v. WilsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
- Wyker v. FrancisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- State ex rel. Dickson v. WilliamsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Township of Marathon v. Township of OregonMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
- Hall v. Selectmen of SomersworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1859
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.