Entwistle v. Murtaugh

New York Court of Appeals

Entwistle v. Murtaugh

214 N.E.2d 153, 17 N.Y.2d 6, 266 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1638

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 N.E.2d 153 (Entwistle v. Murtaugh) 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

Entwistle v. Murtaugh, 214 N.E.2d 153, 17 N.Y.2d 6, 266 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1638 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed. It was not, we think, the intention of the Legislature by the enactment and various amendments of the applicable statutes (Public Officers Law, §§ 10, 30; Town Law, § 25) to set a trap for the unwary by confusing the proper office in which the qualifying oath of office of a town officer should be filed. Under the peculiar and unique statutory situation here presented, we consider that the filing within the time limited by section 30 (subd. 1, par. h) of the Public Officers Law of the oath of a town officer in either the County Clerk’s office or the Town Clerk’s office is sufficient. Appellants ’ oaths of office were taken on December 31, 1963 and January 2, 1964, before the Town Clerk who was authorized by law to take them and his signature to the jurat completed the necessary procedure in taking these oaths. They were in the possession of the Town Clerk at that time, and this, in law, was sufficient to constitute filing with him. That was enough in our judgment to qualify these elected officials of the Town of Frankfort. The subsequent delivery of possession of the oaths to the Supervisor, after their filing with the Town Clerk, was a mere irregularity which did not impair the title of appellants to their offices.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed. It was not, we think, the intention of the Legislature by the enactment and various amendments of the applicable statutes (Public Officers Law, §§ 10, 30; Town Law, § 25) to set a trap for the unwary by confusing the proper office in which the qualifying oath of office of a town officer should be filed. Under the peculiar and unique statutory situation here presented, we consider that the filing within the time limited by section 30 (subd. 1, par. h) of the Public Officers Law of the oath of a town officer in either the County Clerk’s office or the Town Clerk’s office is sufficient. Appellants ’ oaths of office were taken on December 31, 1963 and January 2, 1964, before the Town Clerk who was authorized by law to take them and his signature to the jurat completed the necessary procedure in taking these oaths. They were in the possession of the Town Clerk at that time, and this, in law, was sufficient to constitute filing with him. That was enough in our judgment to qualify these elected officials of the Town of Frankfort. The subsequent delivery of possession of the oaths to the Supervisor, after their filing with the Town Clerk, was a mere irregularity which did not impair the title of appellants to their offices.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 N.E.2d 153, 17 N.Y.2d 6, 266 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entwistle-v-murtaugh-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack