New York Court of Appeals, 1903

O'Keeffe v. . City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 30, 1903 · <italic>Per Curiam</italic>.

68 N.E. 588; 176 N.Y. 297; 14 Bedell 297; 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 803 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Village of Ilion v. County of Herkimer (N.Y. 2014)
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Westchester County (2d Cir. 1923)
Smith v. . Board of Education (N.Y. 1913)
Appleton Water Works Co. v. City of Appleton (Wis. 1908)
Kervin v. Utter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
New York Water Service Corp. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1955)
Miller v. City of Oneida (New York Supreme Court 1934)
Rapid Transit Subway Construction Co. v. City of New York (N.Y. 1932)
Rapid Transit Subway Construction Co. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1927)
Litchfield Construction Co. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
Dock Contractor Co. v. City of New York (2d Cir. 1924)
Ryan v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1917)
In re City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1904)

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

Per Curiam.

The only question brought up for review is as to the time that interest should be allowed upon the plaintiff’s claim. It would be exceedingly difficult for the comptroller of a large city to look up claimants or their heirs or assigns and tender payment as their claims matured and became due. If interest at six jier cent is chargeable from the date of the maturity of claims many persons might- refrain from presenting them during the j>eriod permitted by the Statute of Limitations. The allowing of interest from such maturity would afford a safe and profitable investment which might become very attractive to many and induce them to buy up claims for the purpose of holding them for the interest. This would impose a burden upon the city that it ought not to bear.

The better and more just way is to follow the rule laid down in Taylor v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. (67 N. Y. 87, 94) *299 and Sweeny v. City of New York (173 N. Y. 414) and award interest on claims only after the demand of payment has been made.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Parker, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Martin, Yann, Cullen and Werner, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed. _

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.