People Ex Rel. Spaulding v. Board of Supervisors

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Spaulding v. Board of Supervisors

62 N.E. 1069, 170 N.Y. 93, 1902 N.Y. LEXIS 1043

DecidedFebruary 25, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.E. 1069 (People Ex Rel. Spaulding v. Board of Supervisors) 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

People Ex Rel. Spaulding v. Board of Supervisors, 62 N.E. 1069, 170 N.Y. 93, 1902 N.Y. LEXIS 1043 (N.Y. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Cullen, J.

We are in substantial accord with the opinion delivered by the learned court below, and if the order entered had conformed to the direction in the opinion, that the man- *94 damns should require the appellant to audit the relator’s claims at such sums as were proper, we should have affirmed the order without comment. But the order appealed from requires the appellant to allow those claims at specified amounts. We think, this was erroneous. The original resolution of the board of supervisors authorized the superintendent of the poor to employ the services of W. J. Maybee, the relator’s assignor, to place children then confined in orphan asylums in proper homes at an expense not exceeding fifty dollars for each child. Possibly this would have authorized the superintendent to contract with Maybee for the payment of the sum of fifty dollars in each case, but I can find no proof of such an agreement in the papers. Therefore, the only claim Maybee had for his services was on a quantum meruit for their reasonable value, not exceeding fifty dollars for each child.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified so as to direct the appellant to audit the relator’s claims at their fair and reasonable value, not exceeding fifty dollars for each child placed in a suitable home, without costs to either party.

Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight and Werner, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Cullen, J.

We are in substantial accord with the opinion delivered by the learned court below, and if the order entered had conformed to the direction in the opinion, that the man- *94 damns should require the appellant to audit the relator’s claims at such sums as were proper, we should have affirmed the order without comment. But the order appealed from requires the appellant to allow those claims at specified amounts. We think, this was erroneous. The original resolution of the board of supervisors authorized the superintendent of the poor to employ the services of W. J. Maybee, the relator’s assignor, to place children then confined in orphan asylums in proper homes at an expense not exceeding fifty dollars for each child. Possibly this would have authorized the superintendent to contract with Maybee for the payment of the sum of fifty dollars in each case, but I can find no proof of such an agreement in the papers. Therefore, the only claim Maybee had for his services was on a quantum meruit for their reasonable value, not exceeding fifty dollars for each child.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified so as to direct the appellant to audit the relator’s claims at their fair and reasonable value, not exceeding fifty dollars for each child placed in a suitable home, without costs to either party.

Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight and Werner, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.E. 1069, 170 N.Y. 93, 1902 N.Y. LEXIS 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-spaulding-v-board-of-supervisors-ny-1902.