Carpenter v. . People

New York Court of Appeals

Carpenter v. . People

64 N.Y. 483, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 95

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 64 N.Y. 483 (Carpenter v. . People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. . People, 64 N.Y. 483, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 95 (N.Y. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Rapallo, J.

The challenge to the array of grand jurors was properly disallowed. Hnder the provisions of 2 Revised Statutes (p. 724, §§ 27, 28) no such challenge can be allowed.

The challenge, to the array of petit jurors is founded wholly upon the allegation that the jurors were not selected by Douglas Taylor, the commissioner of jurors of the county of Hew York, and that he did not, nor did any person on his behalf, attend the drawing of such jurors. But it is also stated in the challenge, that the jurors were selected by Thomas Dunlap, who had been appointed by the mayor of the city such commissioner of jurors. That the mayor exercised a pretended right to appoint Dunlap, but that the act of the legislature under which the mayor appointed him was unconstitutional.

It thus appears, on the face of the challenge, that the person who acted as commissioner of jurors had been appointed *485 to that office by the mayor ' of the city of Hew York, in pursuance of an act of the legislature, and that under color of that appointment he assumed to and did exercise the functions of the office. He was therefore a de facto officer, whose acts were valid as to the public, so long as he continued to occupy and exercise the functions of the office; and the validity of his ’ appointment could not be drawn in question in this collateral manner. The demurrer to the challenge was, therefore, properly sustained.

The judgment must be affirmed!

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rapallo, J.

The challenge to the array of grand jurors was properly disallowed. Hnder the provisions of 2 Revised Statutes (p. 724, §§ 27, 28) no such challenge can be allowed.

The challenge, to the array of petit jurors is founded wholly upon the allegation that the jurors were not selected by Douglas Taylor, the commissioner of jurors of the county of Hew York, and that he did not, nor did any person on his behalf, attend the drawing of such jurors. But it is also stated in the challenge, that the jurors were selected by Thomas Dunlap, who had been appointed by the mayor of the city such commissioner of jurors. That the mayor exercised a pretended right to appoint Dunlap, but that the act of the legislature under which the mayor appointed him was unconstitutional.

It thus appears, on the face of the challenge, that the person who acted as commissioner of jurors had been appointed *485 to that office by the mayor ' of the city of Hew York, in pursuance of an act of the legislature, and that under color of that appointment he assumed to and did exercise the functions of the office. He was therefore a de facto officer, whose acts were valid as to the public, so long as he continued to occupy and exercise the functions of the office; and the validity of his ’ appointment could not be drawn in question in this collateral manner. The demurrer to the challenge was, therefore, properly sustained.

The judgment must be affirmed!

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.Y. 483, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-people-ny-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack