Stokes v. The Corporation of New York

14 Wend. 87
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1835
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 14 Wend. 87 (Stokes v. The Corporation 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
Stokes v. The Corporation of New York, 14 Wend. 87 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

It is objected that the declaration is insufficient, because it does not set forth the by-law itself, and the authority by which it was passed. To this it is sufficient to answer, that no objection .was made to the declaration before the justice; and as it refers to the by-law as having been passed by the corporation, it is sufficient in substance. The ordinance was produced in evidence without objection, and the law giving the power to appoint weighmasters is a public act. 2 R. L. 437, § 238, and 460, § 315.

The appointment of weighers and the law requiring coal to be weighed by them is not a restraint upon trade, but a regulation of it. Neither can it be said to be unreasonable. If, as is suggested, the number of weighers was insufficient, the corporation, if applied to, would remove the difficulty by the appointment of an adequate number. If the corporation had no power to compel the employment of weigh-masters, the appointment of them would be perfectly nugatory. This power is necessarily implied in the power to appoint.

The fees of the weighers are said to be a tax, which cannot be imposed, except by law. Fees are not a tax within the meaning of the act referred to, and are particularly authorized by the statute already quoted. Whether the penalty is too high, is certainly not a question for this court. When the plaintiffs below attempt to recover for a great number of penalties in one count, there the case of The Mayor, &c. v. Oldreman, 12 Johns. R. 122, will be an authority in point.

It is unnecessary here to enter into a discussion of the question of the constitutionality of the ordinance, and the law authorizing it. The present case is one clearly within the power of corporate regulation.

Judgment affirmed ; single costs.

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

Related

City of Chicago v. Wisconsin Lime & Cement Co.
144 N.E. 3 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1924)
City of Savanna v. Robinson
81 Ill. App. 471 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Ford v. New York Central & H. R. Railroad
53 N.Y.S. 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Ford v. New York Central
33 A.D. 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
State v. Loomis
21 L.R.A. 789 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
State v. Peel Splint Coal Co.
17 L.R.A. 385 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1892)
State v. Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co.
41 La. Ann. 465 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1889)
Borough of Millerstown v. Bell
16 A. 612 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)
Budd v. Multnomah Street Railway Co.
15 P. 659 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)
In re Watson
15 F. 511 (D. Vermont, 1882)
Gaines v. Coates
51 Miss. 335 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1875)
City of Dubuque v. Stout
32 Iowa 80 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)
City of Davenport v. Kelley
7 Iowa 102 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1858)
State v. Clark
28 N.H. 176 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Commissioners v. Northern Liberties Gas Co.
12 Pa. 318 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1849)
City of Utica v. Richardson
6 Hill & Den. 300 (New York Supreme Court, 1844)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Wend. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-the-corporation-of-new-york-nysupct-1835.