People ex rel. Mullen v. Newton

20 Abb. N. Cas. 387
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 Abb. N. Cas. 387 (People ex rel. Mullen v. Newton) 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
People ex rel. Mullen v. Newton, 20 Abb. N. Cas. 387 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Opinion

Patterson, J.

In the elaborate brief submitted by the [391]*391corporation counsel, it is conceded that the meat rack in question is a nuisance, and the only subject necessarily to be considered is whether this court shall compel the commissioner of public works to remove it.

It is argued that there are thousands of nuisances in the public streets, and that if this court undertakes to direct the commissioner to abate them, he will require the aid of an army of employees, and the city will be put to a heavy expense, which must be borne by the taxpayers, and the suggestion is advanced that in a case where a private person complaining has a clear remedy against the individual maintaining the nuisance he should be left to that remedy, and the court should not exercise its discretion to direct the public officer to act. In the decision of these questions and in the exercise of its discretion the court should not go outside4 of the papers before it, nor have regard ro mere general asseverations of the inconvenience public officers may be put to in carrying out the mandate of the court in the attempt to rid the city of admitted nuisances; but there is here only the simple question of the suppression of this particular nuisance. Why should it not be suppressed ? The argument of inconvenience and expense to the city cannot prevail until it is shown that by reason of the multitude of these applications, actually made, the commissioner of public works is without force of men or supplies of money to enable him to enforce the direction of the court. This is not made to appear on the present application.

The motion for a mandamus is granted.

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

Related

Simis v. Brookfield
34 N.Y.S. 695 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)
Simis v. Brookfield
13 Misc. 569 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Abb. N. Cas. 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-mullen-v-newton-nysupct-1887.