People Ex Rel. Fox v. . Hayden
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made May 12,1890, which affirmed a determination of defendant as commissioner of the department of police and excise in the city of Brooklyn in removing the relator from the office of boiler inspector. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made May 12,1890, which affirmed a determination of defendant as commissioner of the department of police and excise in the city of Brooklyn in removing the relator from the office of boiler inspector. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The holler inspectors have the same privilege of irremovability as that possessed by members of the police force. (Laws of 1867, chap. 883; Laws of 1871, chap. 194, § 16; Laws of 1870, chap. 136, § 13; Laws of 1888,…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Bbien, J.
The judgment of the General Term, from which this appeal is brought, affirmed upon a writ of certiorari, the determination of the commissioners of police and excise of the city of Brooklyn dismissing the relator from the place of boiler inspector in that city. It appears from the relator’s affidavit and the defendant’s return to the writ that on or about April 10,1879, the relator wras appointed such inspector, that he retained the place till February 29, 1890, when he wras removed by the defendant, Henry I. Hayden, commissioner of the department of police and excise, without cause and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. WarneckeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Matter of Hammond v. . City of FultonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Busch v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1905
- Moores v. State ex rel. ShoopNebraska Supreme Court · 1898