Brewster v. City of Hornellsville

54 N.Y.S. 915, 35 A.D. 626
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brewster v. City of Hornellsville. Read the opinion of the Court — 35 A.D. 161

Opinion

HARDIN, P. J.

The special term was called upon to exercise its discretion in respect to whether the additional allowance should be allowed or not. The papers do not show that the discretion was abused, and it ought not to be interfered with. Meyer Rubber Co. v. Lester Shoe Co., 92 Hun, 52, 36 N. Y. Supp. 729; Proctor v. Soulier, 8 App. Div. 69, 40 N. Y. Supp. 459.

2. The claim was not presented, before the action was commenced, to the chief fiscal officer of the city. Gage v. Village of Hornellsville, 106 N. Y. 668, 12 N. E. 817; Dawson v. City of Troy (Sup.) 2 N. Y. Supp. 137; King v. Village of Randolph, 28 App. Div. 28, 50 N. Y. Supp. 902.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brewster v. City of Hornellsville, 54 N.Y.S. 915, 35 A.D. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

54 N.Y.S. 915 (Brewster v. City of Hornellsville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gage v. . the Village of Hornellsville
12 N.E. 817 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
In Re the Laying Out & Opening of Hawthorne Avenue
13 N.E. 936 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Proctor v. Soulier
8 A.D. 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
King v. Village of Randolph
28 A.D. 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Dawson v. City of Troy
2 N.Y.S. 137 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
Meyer Rubber Co. v. Lester Shoe Co.
36 N.Y.S. 729 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
King v. Village of Randolph
50 N.Y.S. 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)