Dressel v. City of Kingston

New York Supreme Court

Dressel v. City of Kingston

39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 526

DecidedMay 15, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 526 (Dressel v. City of Kingston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dressel v. City of Kingston, 39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 526 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1884).

Pincite

Opinions

LbaeNed, P. J.:

The affidavit of Grove Webster, used on this motion, states positively that at the time of the occurrence and of the commencement of the action he was the chief fiscal officer of the city of Kingston. There is no affidavit denying this. He further states that he was the treasurer; which word would itself seem (unless some contrary proof were given) to indicate that he was the chief fiscal officer. At any rate, the fact is not disputed on the affidavit. And if we look at the charter, chapter 150, Laws of 1872, we find the authority for the appointment of a treasurer, and we find no other person who can be called the chief fiscal officer. I do not think that to make section 3245 of the Code of Civil Proceedure applicable it is necessary that the officer be denominated “ chief fiscal officer.” Those words are descriptive and in this case they describe the treasurer of Kingston. Hence under Baine v. City of Rochester (85 N. Y., 523), it is of no consequence that this officer was not authorized to adjust the claim That case decides this.

Order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

BoaedmaN, J., concurred.

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

LbaeNed, P. J.:

The affidavit of Grove Webster, used on this motion, states positively that at the time of the occurrence and of the commencement of the action he was the chief fiscal officer of the city of Kingston. There is no affidavit denying this. He further states that he was the treasurer; which word would itself seem (unless some contrary proof were given) to indicate that he was the chief fiscal officer. At any rate, the fact is not disputed on the affidavit. And if we look at the charter, chapter 150, Laws of 1872, we find the authority for the appointment of a treasurer, and we find no other person who can be called the chief fiscal officer. I do not think that to make section 3245 of the Code of Civil Proceedure applicable it is necessary that the officer be denominated “ chief fiscal officer.” Those words are descriptive and in this case they describe the treasurer of Kingston. Hence under Baine v. City of Rochester (85 N. Y., 523), it is of no consequence that this officer was not authorized to adjust the claim That case decides this.

Order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

BoaedmaN, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dressel-v-city-of-kingston-nysupct-1884.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack