Taylor v. . City of Cohoes

New York Court of Appeals

Taylor v. . City of Cohoes

11 N.E. 282, 105 N.Y. 54, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 461, 60 Sickels 54, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 691

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 11 N.E. 282 (Taylor v. . City of Cohoes) 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

Taylor v. . City of Cohoes, 11 N.E. 282, 105 N.Y. 54, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 461, 60 Sickels 54, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 691 (N.Y. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam.

This action was brought before the new Code went into effect, and hence the section in regard to costs (3245) has no application here. The case must be decided under the act of 1859. (Chap. 262, § 2, Laws of 1859.) Under that section of the law this court substantially held that cases for the recovery of damages for injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of the servants of a municipal corporation were not within its purview. (McGlure v. Sup'rs of Niagara, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83; Howell v. City of Buffalo, 15 N. Y. 512; McGaffin v. City of Cohoes, 74 id., 387.) All of these -cases did not arise under the act of 1859, but the principle decided in them is as stated.

The General Term in this case and in Dressel v. City of Kingston (32 Hun, 526) decided differently upon the authority of Baine v. City of Rochester (85 N. Y. 523). That case, we think, does not go to the extent assumed by the General Term.

In the first place it arose under the section of the Code above cited, and also the cause of action was ex contractu. It was held that in such an action it was not an answer to the requirement of that section of the Code to'show that the city treasurer, the chief fiscal officer of the city, was not authorized to adjust or pay the claim upon presentation. It is true that *57 in the opinion in the Baine case it is not specially stated that the action arose on contract, yet this was its character, and the decision was made with such fact existing. Nothing was said in the opinion as to these other cases above cited, and it cannot he supposed that with reference to actions which were commenced while the act of 1859 was in force, the court meant to overrule them without making any reference to them whatever.

The Baine case is authority for just what was therein decided and it has not yet been decided that under the section of the Code (§ 3245), in an action of this nature a presentation of the claim must be made in accordance with its provisions before the commencement of the action, on pain of being deprived of costs, even if the plaintiff be successful.

The order of the General Term should he reversea and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in both courts.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Guriam.

This action was brought before the new Code went into effect, and hence the section in regard to costs (3245) has no application here. The case must be decided under the act of 1859. (Chap. 262, § 2, Laws of 1859.) Under that section of the law this court substantially held that cases for the recovery of damages for injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of the servants of a municipal corporation were not within its purview. (McGlure v. Sup'rs of Niagara, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 83; Howell v. City of Buffalo, 15 N. Y. 512; McGaffin v. City of Cohoes, 74 id., 387.) All of these -cases did not arise under the act of 1859, but the principle decided in them is as stated.

The General Term in this case and in Dressel v. City of Kingston (32 Hun, 526) decided differently upon the authority of Baine v. City of Rochester (85 N. Y. 523). That case, we think, does not go to the extent assumed by the General Term.

In the first place it arose under the section of the Code above cited, and also the cause of action was ex contractu. It was held that in such an action it was not an answer to the requirement of that section of the Code to'show that the city treasurer, the chief fiscal officer of the city, was not authorized to adjust or pay the claim upon presentation. It is true that *57 in the opinion in the Baine case it is not specially stated that the action arose on contract, yet this was its character, and the decision was made with such fact existing. Nothing was said in the opinion as to these other cases above cited, and it cannot he supposed that with reference to actions which were commenced while the act of 1859 was in force, the court meant to overrule them without making any reference to them whatever.

The Baine case is authority for just what was therein decided and it has not yet been decided that under the section of the Code (§ 3245), in an action of this nature a presentation of the claim must be made in accordance with its provisions before the commencement of the action, on pain of being deprived of costs, even if the plaintiff be successful.

The order of the General Term should he reversea and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in both courts.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.E. 282, 105 N.Y. 54, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 461, 60 Sickels 54, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-city-of-cohoes-ny-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack