Bush v. Board of Supervisors
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to complaint. Action by a taxpayer of the town of Woodbury against the board of supervisors, the town of Woodbury, the supervisor and other town officers thereof and the heirs of one Hiram Ostrander to restrain the payment to the latter of the sum of $300 pursuant to chapter 664, Laws of 1892. It appeared that said Hiram Ostrander was drafted in June, 1864, and paid the sum of $300 commutation money to procure a substitute, and that prior to the commencement of the…
Read the full summary
Demurrer to complaint. Action by a taxpayer of the town of Woodbury against the board of supervisors, the town of Woodbury, the supervisor and other town officers thereof and the heirs of one Hiram Ostrander to restrain the payment to the latter of the sum of $300 pursuant to chapter 664, Laws of 1892. It appeared that said Hiram Ostrander was drafted in June, 1864, and paid the sum of $300 commutation money to procure a substitute, and that prior to the commencement of the present action a mandamus had been procured on the application of the Ostrander heirs directing the board of supervisors…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The principal question presented in this action is as to the constitutionality of chapter 664, Laws of 1892, which is entitled “An act to enable the several cities and towns of this state which have not already done so to refund the money expended in furnishing substitutes or in commutation by the men who were drafted into the military service of the United States and held to service in the several drafts under the conscription act of the United States, entitled ‘ An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for *708other purposes,’ approved March 3d, 1863, and the acts…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mead v. Inhabitants of ActonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Ferguson v. LandramCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1866
- Freeland v. HastingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1865
- Taber v. . Supervisors of Erie CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892