Romano v. Bruck

54 N.Y.S. 935, 25 Misc. 406
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Romano v. Bruck. Read the opinion of the Court — 25 Misc. 406
City of New York Municipal Court·Decided December 7, 1898·Published

Opinion

SCHUCHMAN, J.

We think the court erred in this ruling, and that the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The legislature of a state may delegate to municipal corporations the power to make ordinances, and, when properly passed, they have the force and effect of a legislative act, within the limits prescribed for them. The lease demising part of the public highway, as set forth, is illegal, because it is unlawful under said ordinance, and cannot, therefore, be enforced. The inflexible rule is that no remedy can be had in a court ■of justice on an illegal contract. Bank v. King, 44 N. Y. 87; Brinkman v. Eisler (City Ct. N. Y.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 154.

The judgment and order appealed from are reversed, and a new trial is granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All ■concur.

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

Romano v. Bruck, 54 N.Y.S. 935, 25 Misc. 406 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

54 N.Y.S. 935 (Romano v. Bruck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Saratoga County Bank v. . King
44 N.Y. 87 (New York Court of Appeals, 1870)