County of Herkimer v. Hess

240 A.D. 1013
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1933·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Submitted controversy determined in favor of the defendant Floyd A. Clayton, without costs. Memorandum. We treat this submitted controversy for a declaratory judgment as in the nature of a quo warranto between the two defendants. The Constitution of the State makes no provision for the term of office of supervisor (N. Y. Const, art. 3, § 26). That matter is left to the Legislature (N. Y. Const, art. 10, § 3). It was at all times within the power of the Legislature to fix the term of office even though it resulted in the shortening of the term of a previously elected supervisor. (People ex rel. Mitchell v. Sturgis, 156 N. Y. 580. See Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553.) All concur.

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

County of Herkimer v. Hess, 240 A.D. 1013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

240 A.D. 1013 (County of Herkimer v. Hess) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Twin City Service Station, Inc. v. City of North Tonawanda
162 Misc. 271 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)