From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hallenbeck v. Hallenbeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1933
240 App. Div. 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

July, 1933.


Order in so far as an appeal has been taken therefrom affirmed, without costs. Without passing on the question of the degree of liability imposed on the city by chapter 186 of the Laws of 1908, we are of opinion that the statute is not retroactive in its effect. ( Jacobus v. Colgate, 217 N.Y. 235, 240.) The loss in the funds in the hands of the county treasurer of Kings county occurred before the statute above referred to was enacted. Where a retrospective effect is given to a statute such purpose is ordinarily indicated in the language of the statute itself. ( Jackson v. State of New York, 261 N.Y. 134; Matter of Evans v. Berry, 262 id. 61.) Such liability as exists in instances of loss of funds in the hands of the court rests upon the city or county and not upon the officer who has custody of the funds. (County Law, § 249; Laws of 1927, chap. 185.) Lazansky, P.J., Young, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., not voting.


Summaries of

Hallenbeck v. Hallenbeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1933
240 App. Div. 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

Hallenbeck v. Hallenbeck

Case Details

Full title:HARRY C. HALLENBECK and ELIZABETH C. HALLENBECK, His Wife, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1933

Citations

240 App. Div. 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Citing Cases

Walker v. State of N.Y

The finding of the trial court of a reasonable probability of industrial development is thus sustained. Under…

City of New York v. Buckley

The fact that at the time the allocations in this case were made, the Berney and the Jenfay mortgages were no…