From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

County of Herkimer v. Hess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 1, 1933
240 A.D. 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

December, 1933.


Submitted controversy determined in favor of the defendant Floyd A. Clayton, without costs. MEMORANDUM. We treat this submitted controversy for a declaratory judgment as in the nature of a quo warranto between the two defendants. The Constitution of the State makes no provision for the term of office of supervisor (N.Y. Const. art. 3, § 26). That matter is left to the Legislature (N.Y. Const. art. 10, § 3). It was at all times within the power of the Legislature to fix the term of office even though it resulted in the shortening of the term of a previously elected supervisor. ( People ex rel. Mitchell v. Sturgis, 156 N.Y. 580. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553.) All concur.


Summaries of

County of Herkimer v. Hess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 1, 1933
240 A.D. 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

County of Herkimer v. Hess

Case Details

Full title:COUNTY OF HERKIMER, Plaintiff, v. MYRON D. HESS and FLOYD A. CLAYTON…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1933

Citations

240 A.D. 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Citing Cases

Twin City Service Station, v. North Tonawanda

(N.Y. Const. art. 3, § 27; art. 10, § 3. See County of Herkimer v. Hess, 240 A.D.…