General
In the Matter of the Claim of James Cassidy, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent
47 N.Y. 659·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Claim of James Cassidy, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. The City of Brooklyn, Respondent.
The provisions of the act to authorize the election of an additional justice of the peace in the city of Brooklyn, etc. (chap. 689, Laws of 1868), do not authorize the appointment of a clerk for the court of said justice.
In any case the concurrence of the mayor of said city is necessary to the valid appointment of a clerk.
(Submitted January 19th, 1872 ;
decided January 23d, 1872.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second department, in favor of defendant upon a case submitted under section 372 of the Code.
The claim was for the salary of plaintiff’s intestate as clerk of the Justices’ Court, of the sixth district, in the city of Brooklyn.
J. Gr. Sehumaker for appellant.
W. G. JDe Witt for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm upon opinion of Gilbert, J., below.