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.
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Henry D. Denison et al., Respondents, 1880 — 80 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Henry D. Denison et al., Respondents
80 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1880·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
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Henry D. Denison et al., Respondents.
(Argued January 29, 1880;
decided April 6, 1880.)
This action was brought to recover back moneys alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by defendants, under color of a contract with the State, “ by means of frauds,
' devices, false pretences and vouchers, and corrupt combinations and collusions with State officers.” The opinion read as stated in the minutes was not handed down.
C. J. Everett for appellants.
Wm. Q. Huger for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads an opinion for affirmance of order of General Term, and for judgment absolute for defendants' holding.
First. That the cause of action stated in the complaint was one in fraud alone, and that the referees did not find that there was fraud in the transaction. In which all concurred except Earl, J., who thought the action might be held as one ex contractu.
Second. That the referees were right, though not in .all details stated by them, in the opinion that the canal commissioners and auditor acted without authority of law in some of the payments made to the defendants, but that the referees were wrong in holding that the State could recover all the moneys thus paid and not allow for the value of the work done. In this Miller and Earl, JJ., concurred; Church, Ch. J., Eapallo, Andrews and Daneorth, JJ., expressed no opinion.
Third. That there was not a ratification by the Legislature of the unauthorized payments. In this Miller and Earl, JJ., concurred ; Church, Ch. J., Eapallo, Andrews and Daneorth, JJ., did not concur, but on the contrary, held, that there was a ratification by the Legislature.
Order affirmed and judgment absolute for defendants.