TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kings County Lighting Company v. City of New York

Kings County Lighting Company, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant

Kings Cnty. Lighting Co. v. City of N.Y., 116 N.E. 1055 (N.Y. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1917
Citations
116 N.E. 1055221 N.Y. 5001917 N.Y. LEXIS 1348
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 30, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term sustaining demurrers to separate defenses set up in the answer. The action is to recover for gas furnished the city for street lighting and for use in public buildings in the thirtieth ward of the borough of Brooklyn, formerly the town of New Utrecht, under a contract theretofore entered into with the authorities of said town. The answer set up as a separate defense that by an act of the legislature, which becamealaw on June 3, 1905, which is known as chapter 736 of the Laws of 1905, the legislature of the state fixed the price of illuminating gas to be furnished and sold by the plaintiff to the city on and after July 1, 1905, at a sum hot to exceed seventy-five cents per 1,000 cubic feet of gas, and that the price demanded by the plaintiff for the gas supplied to the city is in excess of that fixed hy the said act; alleged the same facts for a partial defense, and for a third and partial defense alleged the enactment of chapter 136 of the Laws of 1905, fixing the price of gas at seventy-five cents per 1,000 cubic feet, and further alleged that the said price of seventy-five cents per 1,000 cubic feet is the reasonable value of the gas furnished to the city, and that the price for gas which the city is required to pay under the alleged contract is more than the reasonable value of such gas. The following questions were certified: “ 1. Is the first separate defense contained in the answer of defendant to plaintiff’s first cause of action insufficient in law upon the face thereof ? 2. Is the second separate and partial defense contained in the answer of the defendant to plaintiff’s first cause of action insufficient in law upon the face thereof ? 3. Is the third separate and partial defense contained in the answer of the defendant to plaintiff’s first cause of action insufficient in law upon the face thereof % ”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: Crane, J.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11920: 11923: 11935: 11937: 11941: 11957: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Most recent

  1. Hill v. Water Power & Control Commission5 Misc. 2d 1026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1957)
  2. 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. Murdock34 N.E.2d 329 (N.Y. 1941)
  3. Town of Cordova v. Alaska Public Utilities9 Alaska 196 (D. Alaska 1937)
  4. Farrell v. Board of Health243 A.D. 332 (1935)
  5. City of St. George v. Public Utilities Commission220 P. 720 (Utah 1923)
  6. City of Charleston v. Public Service Commission103 S.E. 673 (W. Va. 1920)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list