From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Cahill v. Barker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1896
5 App. Div. 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

May Term, 1896.

Henry A. Gumbleton, for the relator.

Terence Farley, for the respondents.


Article 10, section 3, of the Constitution, as it existed prior to 1894, and as it still exists, provides: "When the duration of any office is not provided by this Constitution it may be declared by law, and if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority making the appointment."

The duration of this office was not provided for by the Constitution, nor was it declared by the Consolidation Act or any other act of the Legislature.

The relator was not within any of the provisions of law limiting the power of removal, as in cases of the police force, heads of bureaus, clerks, veterans, etc.

We see no escape, therefore, from the conclusion that the respondents had the power to remove the relator from his office as assessor at their pleasure.

The writ should be dismissed.

VAN BRUNT, P.J., RUMSEY, O'BRIEN and INGRAHAM, JJ., concurred.

Writ dismissed.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Cahill v. Barker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1896
5 App. Div. 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Cahill v. Barker

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. EDWARD CAHILL v . EDWARD P…

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

Date published: May 1, 1896

Citations

5 App. Div. 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
39 N.Y.S. 140

Citing Cases

Matter of Bornstein v. Freeman

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellant, whose term and tenure were not defined by any…