Frankenstein v. Cummisky

New York Supreme Court

Frankenstein v. Cummisky

46 Misc. 485, 92 N.Y.S. 708

DecidedMarch 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Misc. 485 (Frankenstein v. Cummisky) 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

Frankenstein v. Cummisky, 46 Misc. 485, 92 N.Y.S. 708 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

This is an action against the sureties on the official bond of a city marshal of the former city of Brooklyn. The bond was that the marshal “ shall faithfully discharge the duties of his office, and shall promptly account for and pay over all moneys or property received by him as officer in accordance with the law.” This was in accordance with the terms of the city charter (Tit. 3, sec. 4), and of the statute substituting marshals for constables (Laws of 1896, ch. 1000). '

[486]*486The complaint alleges that the marshal levied upon and took goods of the plaintiff under an execution issued to him against the property of another person. It must be deemed as settled in this state that an officer and his sureties are liable in damages on a general clause in his bond “for the faithful discharge' of his! duties,” or equivalent general words, for a levy on the goods of one person under an execution or other process against the goods of another person (People v. Schuyler, 4 N. Y. 173; Berry v. Schaad, 50, App. Div. 132; Fohs v. Rain, 39 Misc. Rep. 316). In People ex rel. Comstock v. Lucas (93 N. Y. 585), the. words of the bond were not general, i. e., for the faithful performance of the duties of the office, but. restricted, and it was only held that they were too restricted to support an action like the present.

Motion granted.

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

Gaynor, J.:

This is an action against the sureties on the official bond of a city marshal of the former city of Brooklyn. The bond was that the marshal “ shall faithfully discharge the duties of his office, and shall promptly account for and pay over all moneys or property received by him as officer in accordance with the law.” This was in accordance with the terms of the city charter (Tit. 3, sec. 4), and of the statute substituting marshals for constables (Laws of 1896, ch. 1000). '

[486]*486The complaint alleges that the marshal levied upon and took goods of the plaintiff under an execution issued to him against the property of another person. It must be deemed as settled in this state that an officer and his sureties are liable in damages on a general clause in his bond “for the faithful discharge' of his! duties,” or equivalent general words, for a levy on the goods of one person under an execution or other process against the goods of another person (People v. Schuyler, 4 N. Y. 173; Berry v. Schaad, 50, App. Div. 132; Fohs v. Rain, 39 Misc. Rep. 316). In People ex rel. Comstock v. Lucas (93 N. Y. 585), the. words of the bond were not general, i. e., for the faithful performance of the duties of the office, but. restricted, and it was only held that they were too restricted to support an action like the present.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Misc. 485, 92 N.Y.S. 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankenstein-v-cummisky-nysupct-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack