Bush v. Seabury

8 Johns. 418
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1’he act incorporating the village of Poughkeepsie, authorizes the trustees to make by-laws, relative to public markets within the said village, &c, and relative to any thing whatsoever that may concern the public apd good government of the said village, but no such by-laws shall extend to the regulating or ascertaining the prices of any commodities or articles of provision, except the article of bread, that may be offered for sale.” Without this special exception, it would seem that even the regulation of the price of provisions might, in the opinion of tire legislature, have been included ún-der the general authority contained in this provision. The fixing the place and times at which markets shall be held and kept open, and the prohibition to sell at other places and times, is among the most ordinary regulations of a city or town police, and would naturally be inclu. ded in the general power to pass laws relative to the public markets. If the corporation had not the povver in question, it is difficult to. see what useful purpose could be effected, or what object was intended, by the grant of the power to pass laws “ relative to the public markets.” The mere regulation of the building and of the stalls of those who might cho.ose to go there, instead of elsewhere, to sell their market provision, would be an idle and useless power, and of no moment towards the good government of the village. Extravagant cases may be stated of the abuse of the power, as by an ordinance to re» [421] >ulate the sale of wheat, &c. but this is not a logical way ° . b 3 to test the existence or the power.

There was no objection taken in the court below to the manner in which the corporation sued, nor as to the place where the offences were proved to have been committed. The declaration was by the plaintiffs, in their corporate style, and we must intend that they duly appeared, and that the sales by the defendant were within the prescribed limits, and that the verdict was founded on the charge of the justice that the by-law was illegal and void. That charge being erroneous, the verdict was also wrong, and the judgment must be reversed.

judgment reversed,»

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

Bush v. Seabury, 8 Johns. 418 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

8 Johns. 418 (Bush v. Seabury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Buffalo v. Hill
79 A.D. 402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
City of St. Louis v. Russell
20 L.R.A. 721 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
Chaddock v. Day
75 Mich. 527 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
State ex rel. Russell v. Beattie
16 Mo. App. 131 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Cronin v. . People of the State of New York
82 N.Y. 318 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)
Wallack v. Mayor of New York
5 Thomp. & Cook 310 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
City of Dubuque v. Stout
32 Iowa 80 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)
City of St. Louis v. Weber
44 Mo. 547 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1869)
City of Burlington v. Kellar
18 Iowa 59 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)
Caldwell v. City of Alton
33 Ill. 416 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)
City of Saint Paul v. Laidler
2 Minn. 190 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1858)
City of Davenport v. Kelley
7 Iowa 102 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1858)