Gaynor v. Village of Port Chester

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Rich, Putnam and Jaycox, JJ., concurred; Blackmar, J., dissented upon the ground that the learning of Wakefield v. Brophy (67 Misc. Rep. 298; affd., sub nom. Wakefield v. Gaynor, 144 App. Div. 905; affd., 207 N. Y. 772) does not apply, inasmuch as the express statute* has declared the claim is for a village purpose; with whom Jenks, P. J., concurred.