Hilton v. Cram

2 Citing cases

  1. Bean v. Clausen

    113 App. Div. 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)   Cited 3 times

    The contention that the plaintiff should have first established his right to reinstatement by mandamus, certiorari or quo warranto, would require serious consideration were it not for the conceded facts that he did promptly resort to his remedy by mandamus, and that before he was able to obtain a final determination thereon, circumstances transpired which would render that proceeding ineffectual for any purpose. It is manifest that he could not be reinstated after the jurisdiction over the aquarium lawfully passed out of the city and into the hands of another corporation. These facts clearly distinguish the case at bar from Hilton v. Cram ( 112 App. Div. 35), recently decided by this court. Without reinstatement or an adjudication in an appropriate legal proceeding in their favor establishing their rights thereto, public officials cannot recover the salary of the office or position. ( Hagan v. City of Brooklyn, 5 N.Y. Supp. 425; affd., 126 N.Y. 643; Van Valkenburgh v. Mayor, 49 App. Div. 208; Jones v. City of Buffalo, 178 N.Y. 45.)

  2. Legg v. Brandt

    261 App. Div. 319 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    In matters similar to this, mandamus was the remedy adopted. ( Matter of Nagelberg v. Finegan, 267 N.Y. 632; Hilton v. Cran, 112 App. Div. 35; affd., 190 N.Y. 535.) Under section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act, a proceeding of this character must be instituted by service of the petition and accompanying papers within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner.