From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 12, 1922
138 N.E. 424 (N.Y. 1922)

Opinion

Argued June 1, 1922

Decided July 12, 1922

John P. O'Brien, Corporation Counsel ( John F. O'Brien, Henry J. Shields and Harold Taylor of counsel), for appellant.

Douglas Mathewson and Henry H. Spitz for respondents.


For some reason the question has not been raised whether the statute (L. 1917, ch. 813) under which recovery has been allowed in this action is constitutional so far as it permits municipalities to purchase on credit commodities for resale. Under the provisions of the Constitution, especially article 8, section 10, which provides that no city shall be allowed to incur any indebtedness except for city purposes, this question necessarily arises and as it involves considerations of general interest and public policy, we feel that it may not be waived by the appellant but should be considered by the court. Re-argument ordered. The question which the court desires to have argued is whether chapter 813 of the Laws of 1917 conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution of the state of New York, especially article 8, section 10.


Summaries of

Howard v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 12, 1922
138 N.E. 424 (N.Y. 1922)
Case details for

Howard v. the City of New York

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM W. HOWARD et al., Respondents, v . THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 12, 1922

Citations

138 N.E. 424 (N.Y. 1922)
138 N.E. 424