In the Matter of Manhattan Savings Inst'n.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mummert v. Thunderbird Lanes, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970)
- Armaniaco v. Cresskill (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960)
- Austin v. Barrett (Ariz. 1932)
- Kocak v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1932)
- Wayne County v. Auditor General (Mich. 1930)
- Browne v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1925)
- State v. Mutual Life Insurance (Ind. 1910)
- People ex rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Ass'n v. Pratt (New York Supreme Court 1892)
- Westbrook v. Miller (Mich. 1885)
- People ex rel. Sheridan v. French (New York Supreme Court 1884)
- In re Paine (New York Supreme Court 1882)
- Knauer v. Globe Mutual Life Insurance (The Superior Court of New York City 1882)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Mahan case went against the appellant upon the single ground that the provisions of the statute, under which the proceedings there brought in question were instituted, had not been complied with. 'It appeared that the price allowed for certain rock excavation, to be made in the course of the improvement, was fixed by the commissioner, and so that portion of the work withheld from competition. The *144 same fact exists here. It is claimed, however, by the learned counsel for the appellant that “ in view of the uniform course of public officers in interpreting the law, it should be assumed that the course adopted was proper; ” and in support of this position he cites Dayton's case (55 N. Y. 367). The construction upheld was that which had been given to the statute there under consideration by the legislature, the makers of the law. It has no application where, as in this instance, the construction is given by the party whose duty it was to obey the law; and Mahan's ease must control.
There might he force in the appellant’s argument, based upon delay of the property owner in moving to vacate the assessment, but this is a special proceeding (Matter of Jetter, 78 N. Y. 601); it was commenced within the time limited by statute (Code, §§ 388, 414), and by that rule must be governed.. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur. Folg-er. Ch. J., on authority of In re Robbins,
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.