Dill v. Wheeler
In the Matter of the Application of Isaac S. Dill, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus Against Charles B. Wheeler Et Al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of Buffalo, Respondents
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Cullen, Ch. J.
The relator was appointed a battalion chief in the fire department of the city of Buffalo on July *107 lltli, 1904. The municipal civil service commission refused to certify to relator’s pay because he had not taken a competitive examination and his name not been placed on the eligible list for that position. Thereupon he applied for a writ of mandamus to the civil service commission requiring it to reclassify the position held by him and place the same in the exempt class and to certify to his salary. The application was denied at Special Term, and the order entered thereon was affirmed by the Appellate Division.
While we have hold in the case of People ex rel. Schau v. McWilliams (ante, p. 92) that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct an illegal or erroneous classification by the civil service commission, the views there expressed, that the position or office of battalion chief in the fire department of Buffalo is one of that character the classification of which rests in the discretion and judgment of the civil service commission and is not properly the subject of review by the courts, dispose of this application.
The order of the Appellate Division must, therefore, be affirmed, but, under the circumstances, without costs to either party in this court.
O’Brien, Haight, Vann, Werner and Willard Bartlett, JJ., concur; Hiscook, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 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.