TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vose v. Reed

Francis Vose, Appellant, v. Harrison Reed Et Al., Respondents

Vose v. Reed, 54 N.Y. 657 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1873
Judges
Johnson
Citations
54 N.Y. 657
Headnotes
Public officers charged with quasi public trusts, in the discharge of which private persons are interested, under laws creating the obligations of contracts, are not answerable for the misconduct of their predecessors. If any former officer has been guilty of a breach of such a trust, he is responsible; his successor is not. Bach is answerable in his own time for his own discharge of duty.
Summary
This action was brought by defendant to compel the application of certain moneys, the proceeds of the sale of the Florida Railroad Company, alleged to be on deposit in the National City Bank, defendant, toward the payment of interest coupons due upon bonds of said company, held by the plaintiff. The moneys were deposited with said bank or with defendant Moses Taylor by the trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida. The question of the right of plaintiff to reach the fund was dependent upon the construction of an act of the legislature of Florida providing for internal improvements in that State. The court held that, under said act, the fund in question was not applicable to the payment of interest on the bonds of the company. The complaint contained some allegations of misappropriation of funds and breaches of trust on the part of the board of trustees. It appeared that the alleged misappropriations had not been by the defendants, the present trustees, but by their predecessors. Held, that the said trustees were not a corporate body under said act, and as public officers were not liable for the misconduct of their predecessors under the principles above stated; that they were only bound to administer the fund that came into their hands.

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

Opinion of the Court — Johnson

Johnson, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1901: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilson v. Mitchell43 Fla. 107 (1901)

Most recent

  1. Wilson v. Mitchell43 Fla. 107 (1901)

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