In re the Application for Summons for the Attendance of Certain Witnesses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Application for Summons for the Attendance of Certain Witnesses

257 A.D. 921, 12 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8408

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 921 (In re the Application for Summons for the Attendance of Certain Witnesses) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Application for Summons for the Attendance of Certain Witnesses, 257 A.D. 921, 12 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The City Charter and the General City Law grant to the common council duties and powers for the exercise of which investigations are desirable and often necessary. We, therefore, think that the power to hold investigations is implicit in the authority granted. Even without such authority the power to investigate is incidentally imphed. (Briggs v. Mackellar, 2 Abb. Pr. 30, 56, 57; Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244, 260.) Without the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to investigate would be seriously curbed. The courts cannot assume to pass upon the good faith of pubEe officials in the discharge of their functions. (Matter of Hirschfield v. Craig, 239 N. Y. 98, 106.) We find no merit in the contention that the common council should have proceeded by ordinance rather than by resolution or In the special appearance of the appeEants in the court below. AE concur. (The order grants an appEcation for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum 'and personal subpoenas against appeEants to appear before the committee and pro[922]*922duce certain records.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The City Charter and the General City Law grant to the common council duties and powers for the exercise of which investigations are desirable and often necessary. We, therefore, think that the power to hold investigations is implicit in the authority granted. Even without such authority the power to investigate is incidentally imphed. (Briggs v. Mackellar, 2 Abb. Pr. 30, 56, 57; Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244, 260.) Without the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to investigate would be seriously curbed. The courts cannot assume to pass upon the good faith of pubEe officials in the discharge of their functions. (Matter of Hirschfield v. Craig, 239 N. Y. 98, 106.) We find no merit in the contention that the common council should have proceeded by ordinance rather than by resolution or In the special appearance of the appeEants in the court below. AE concur. (The order grants an appEcation for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum 'and personal subpoenas against appeEants to appear before the committee and pro[922]*922duce certain records.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 921, 12 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-application-for-summons-for-the-attendance-of-certain-witnesses-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack