Howard v. . the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Howard v. . the City of New York

138 N.E. 424, 234 N.Y. 505, 1922 N.Y. LEXIS 667

DecidedJuly 12, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.E. 424 (Howard v. . the City of New York) 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

Howard v. . the City of New York, 138 N.E. 424, 234 N.Y. 505, 1922 N.Y. LEXIS 667 (N.Y. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

For some reason the question has not been raised whether the statute (L. 1917, ch. 813) under which recovery has been allowed in this action is constitutional so far as it permits municipalities to purchase on credit commodities for resale. Under the provisions of the Constitution, especially article 8, section 10, which provides that no city shall be allowed to incur any indebtedness except for city purposes, this question necessarily arises and as it involves considerations of general interest and public policy, we feel that it may not be waived by the appellant but should be considered by the court. Re-argument ordered. The question which the court desires to have argued is whether chapter 813 of the Laws of 1917 conflicts. with the provisions of the Constitution of the state of New York, especially article 8, section 10.

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

Per Curiam.

For some reason the question has not been raised whether the statute (L. 1917, ch. 813) under which recovery has been allowed in this action is constitutional so far as it permits municipalities to purchase on credit commodities for resale. Under the provisions of the Constitution, especially article 8, section 10, which provides that no city shall be allowed to incur any indebtedness except for city purposes, this question necessarily arises and as it involves considerations of general interest and public policy, we feel that it may not be waived by the appellant but should be considered by the court. Re-argument ordered. The question which the court desires to have argued is whether chapter 813 of the Laws of 1917 conflicts. with the provisions of the Constitution of the state of New York, especially article 8, section 10.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E. 424, 234 N.Y. 505, 1922 N.Y. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-the-city-of-new-york-ny-1922.