Supervisors of Kings v. Walter

New York Supreme Court

Supervisors of Kings v. Walter

6 Thomp. & Cook 338, 11 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 87

DecidedMarch 15, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Thomp. & Cook 338 (Supervisors of Kings v. Walter) 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

Supervisors of Kings v. Walter, 6 Thomp. & Cook 338, 11 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 87 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1875).

Pincite

Opinions

Barnard, P. J.

I do not think that the liability sought to be enforced in this action is the result of an act done- by the defendant, as sheriff, in his official capacity, and by virtue of his office. The defendant was sheriff, and as such had the official duty to board the prisoners in the jail, but the allegation is that the defendant, by means of a sworn bill and false vouchers, procured payment for boarding fictitious prisoners, “persons who were never committed to, received at, or confined in, boarded at, or discharged from said jail.” It is a fraud of the gravest description, and one which procured a large sum of money, 824,122.25, from the public treasury.

The short statute of limitation (one year) for acts honestly done by sheriffs, by virtue of their office, could not have been intended to cover up such a case.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Barnard, P. J.

I do not think that the liability sought to be enforced in this action is the result of an act done- by the defendant, as sheriff, in his official capacity, and by virtue of his office. The defendant was sheriff, and as such had the official duty to board the prisoners in the jail, but the allegation is that the defendant, by means of a sworn bill and false vouchers, procured payment for boarding fictitious prisoners, “persons who were never committed to, received at, or confined in, boarded at, or discharged from said jail.” It is a fraud of the gravest description, and one which procured a large sum of money, 824,122.25, from the public treasury.

The short statute of limitation (one year) for acts honestly done by sheriffs, by virtue of their office, could not have been intended to cover up such a case.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Thomp. & Cook 338, 11 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/supervisors-of-kings-v-walter-nysupct-1875.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack