People v. Schoonmaker
New York Supreme Court
11IIIS action was brought to restrain the defendants, who are commissioners under the statute, from issuing town bonds of the town of Rosendale, Ulster county, in aid of the construction of the Wallkill Valley -Railroad. The defendants were appointed commissioners of said town of Rosendale, under chapter 311 of the laws of 1868. A temporary injunction was granted on the complaint alone, at the commencement of the action.
Read the full summary
11IIIS action was brought to restrain the defendants, who are commissioners under the statute, from issuing town bonds of the town of Rosendale, Ulster county, in aid of the construction of the Wallkill Valley -Railroad. The defendants were appointed commissioners of said town of Rosendale, under chapter 311 of the laws of 1868. A temporary injunction was granted on the complaint alone, at the commencement of the action. The ground on which the plaintiffs claimed an injunction was, that the necessary number of consents had not been obtained to authorize the issue of bonds. The plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, P. Potter, J.
The construction to be given to the act of the legislature of 1868, (chap. 311, § 3,) is really the only question in this case. Hone of the facts set up in the answer, or stated in the affidavits read on the motion, are controverted by the people, or the other plaintiff's in the action. Independent of the facts contained in the defendants’ affidavits, and waiving the question whether the attorney general has authority to institute and maintain such an action, I am inclined to think that this motion can be determined by a reasonable interpretation of this special act…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica & Schenectady Rail RoadNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Crawford v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- American Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Van EpsNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Smith v. HelmerNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- United States v. HerbertU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1836
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State ex rel. Coleman v. KellySupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Wachtel v. Diamond State Engineering Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Dew v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
- Zebert v. HuntU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1901
- Fransac Corp. v. Avnet, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.