Skip to content

People v. Herkimer

The People against Herkimer, Gentleman, one, &c.

People v. Herkimer, 4 Cow. 345 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1825)

Court: New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided: February 15, 1825
Judges: Curia, Savage
Citations: 4 Cow. 345

Cited by 16

Headnotes

The people ^avo of the king, the former sovereign of this state. They are not, therefore, bound by general words in a statute restrictive of prerogative, without being expressly named. E. g. The insolvent laws. The courts will take judicial notice of public statutes.

Summary

Assumpsit. The declaration was, that on the 1st June, 1822, the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in $200, as well for work, labor and services, before that time, done an¿ performed by the clerks of this Court, for the defendant, at his special instance and request, as for divers materials and other necessary things used in and about that work, before that time found and provided by the plaintiffs, at the like special instance and request; and being so indebted, &c. promised, &c. Plea, that after the. promises, &c, to wit, on the 11th December, 1818, in the town of Danube, in the county of Herkimer, the defendant became insolvent, &c. and in conjunction with so many of his creditors, whose just debts amounted in value to at least one-third of all the moneys owing by him, presented their petition to Nathan Smith, Esq. first Judge, &c. praying that the defendant might be discharged, &c. agreeably to the provisions of the act for giving relief in cases bf insol vency, &c. (going on and setting forth a regular assignment and discharge on the 2,0th day of March, 1819, pursuant to that act;) that the promises, &c. were made before that time, &c. General demurrer and joinder.

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

Opinion of the Court — Curiasavage

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.

It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the King slia.ll be bound by such act, though not named; but when a statute is general, and any prerogative right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King, in such case he shall not be bound, unless the statute is made by express words to extend to him. (11 Co. 74. Bac. Ab. Prerogative, (E) pl. 5.) The acts of limitation and of bankruptcy have been held, in England, not to bind the King. And the same doctrine was adopted by this Court in The People v. Gil bert, ( 18 John. 229 ,) so far as relates to the statute of limitation. The reason of that case applies to the insolvent acts, and the same rule must prevail. That the People of the state being the sovereign, have succeeded to the rights of the King, the former sovereign, is also held in the case last cited. This disposes of the demurrer in favor of the plaintiffs. Were it necessary to decide the other question, I should incline to consider the plea sufficient, on the gromid that the Court are to take notice of all public acts. They, therefore, know that the law giving the clerk’s fees to the people, was passed at the same session with the insolvent act. And the services must necessarily have been rendered afterwards.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Emery County v. Burresen37 L.R.A. 732 (Utah 1896)
Gewertz v. Berry180 N.E. 251 (N.Y. 1932)
Mayrhofer v. Board of Education of San Diego26 P. 646 (Cal. 1891)
Martin v. State Liquor Authority43 Misc. 2d 682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp.113 N.E.2d 520 (N.Y. 1953)
People v. Baldwin197 A.D. 285 (1921) · Dissent

Most recent

Shilbury v. Board of Supervisors46 Misc. 2d 837 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)
Martin v. State Liquor Authority43 Misc. 2d 682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
Easley v. State10 Misc. 2d 370 (1957)
In re the General Assignment for Benefit of Creditors of Long Island Lacquer Co.3 A.D.2d 669 (1957)
Pennbild Realty Co. v. People208 Misc. 825 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1955)
City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp.113 N.E.2d 520 (N.Y. 1953)

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	People v. Gilbert, 18 Johns. 227 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1820)	25