Claim of Cassidy v. City of Brooklyn
In the Matter of the Claim of James Cassidy, Administrator, Etc., Appellant, v. the City of Brooklyn, Respondent
Claim of Cassidy v. City of Brooklyn, 47 N.Y. 659 (1872)
Headnotes
The provisions of the act to authorize the election of an additional justice of the peace in the city of Brooklyn, etc. (chap. 689, Laws of 1868), do not authorize the appointment of a clerk for the court of said justice.
In any case the concurrence of the mayor of said city is necessary to the valid appointment of a clerk.
Summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second department, in favor of defendant upon a case submitted under section 372 of the Code.
The claim was for the salary of plaintiff’s intestate as clerk of the Justices’ Court, of the sixth district, in the city of Brooklyn.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Agree to affirm upon opinion of Gilbert, J., below.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.