Mutual Life Insurance v. Mayor of New York

New York Supreme Court

Mutual Life Insurance v. Mayor of New York

29 N.Y.S. 980, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 250

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 980 (Mutual Life Insurance v. Mayor of New York) 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

Mutual Life Insurance v. Mayor of New York, 29 N.Y.S. 980, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 250 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

FOLLETT, J.

October 30, 1876, the defendant entered into a contract with Bartholomew Noonan for the construction of a sewer in a street on which a lot of the plaintiff abutted. The contract provided for the excavation of rock at a price agreed on, though the proposals for doing the work had not been advertised, as required by the statute then in force. Laws 1873, c. 335, § 91. In 1879 an assessment of $1,398.88, on account of work done under this contract, was levied against the plaintiff’s lot, of which sum $996 was for the expense of excavating the rock under the contract. Subsequently the plaintiff, in ignorance of the fact that the contract for excavating rock had been let without advertising for proposals, as required by the statute, and not knowing that the assessment for paying the cost of its excavation was void, paid to the defend[981]*981ant the sum assessed, with interest. This assessment, though valid on its face, was void for want of jurisdiction. Jex v. Mayor, etc., 103 N. Y. 536, 9 N. E. 39; In re Merriam, 84 N. Y. 596. The plaintiff, having paid the assessment in good faith, and without notice of its invalidity, may maintain this action to recover the sum paid. Tripler v. City of New York, 139 N. Y. 11, 34 N. E. 729. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

FOLLETT, J.

October 30, 1876, the defendant entered into a contract with Bartholomew Noonan for the construction of a sewer in a street on which a lot of the plaintiff abutted. The contract provided for the excavation of rock at a price agreed on, though the proposals for doing the work had not been advertised, as required by the statute then in force. Laws 1873, c. 335, § 91. In 1879 an assessment of $1,398.88, on account of work done under this contract, was levied against the plaintiff’s lot, of which sum $996 was for the expense of excavating the rock under the contract. Subsequently the plaintiff, in ignorance of the fact that the contract for excavating rock had been let without advertising for proposals, as required by the statute, and not knowing that the assessment for paying the cost of its excavation was void, paid to the defend[981]*981ant the sum assessed, with interest. This assessment, though valid on its face, was void for want of jurisdiction. Jex v. Mayor, etc., 103 N. Y. 536, 9 N. E. 39; In re Merriam, 84 N. Y. 596. The plaintiff, having paid the assessment in good faith, and without notice of its invalidity, may maintain this action to recover the sum paid. Tripler v. City of New York, 139 N. Y. 11, 34 N. E. 729. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y.S. 980, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 482, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-life-insurance-v-mayor-of-new-york-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack