Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Diantha Cooley, Appellant, v. The Town of Guilford, Respondent, 1872 — 47 N.Y. 673 · caselaw · US
Tax
Diantha Cooley, Appellant, v. The Town of Guilford, Respondent
47 N.Y. 673·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
Diantha Cooley, Appellant, v. The Town of Guilford, Respondent.
(Argued February 14, 1872 ;
decided February 20, 1872.)
Action upon a town bond alleged to have been issued by defendant under section three of the act authorizing the levying of a tax to repay moneys borrowed to pay bounties, etc., passed February 9th, 1864. (Chapter 8, Laws of 1864.) The bond was given for moneys borrowed pursuant to resolution of the town after the passage of the act. Held, the town only had authority under the section in question to issue bonds for debts incurred prior to the passage of the act.
I. S. Newton for appellant.
Samuel Hand for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Peokham]
Peokham
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur. Judgment affirmed.