Hogan v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 10 January 1911 |
| Citation | 200 N.Y. 370,93 N.E. 951 |
| Parties | HOGAN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by Lawrence F. Hogan against the Board of Education of the City of New York. The Appellate Division affirmed (137 App. Div. 255,121 N. Y. Supp. 924) a determination of the Appellate Term reversing (65 Misc. Rep. 194,119 N. Y. Supp. 734) a judgment of the Municipal Court in the City of New York which overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and plaintiff appeals by permission. Affirmed.
See, also, 137 App. Div. 944,122 N. Y. Supp. 1131.
John E. O'Brien, for appellant.
Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly, of counsel), for respondent.
Appellant has brought this action to recover compensation claimed to be due to him as a statistician in the employment of the department of education in the city of New York. As the complaint alleges, the claim for compensation is based on a resolution of the board of education increasing appellant's salary, and the question raised by the demurrer and involved on the appeal is whether said board had the power to raise and thus fix the appellant's compensation, or whether this power rested exclusively with the board of aldermen of said city. The latter is manifestly the case, and this seems to be made so clear by the provisions of the charter and by the opinion of Judge Miller at the Appellate Division that it would be regarded as unnecessary to say anything further except for the fact that there has been more or less controversy on various branches of this subject, and therefore it is deemed wise that this court should briefly express its opinion.
Section 1091 of the present charter of New York City (Laws 1901, c. 466), and which is found amongst the sections relating to the powers and duties of the board of education, provides that ‘the board of education shall have power to adopt by-laws fixing the salaries of all members of the supervising and the teaching staff,’ and then follow many and explicit provisions limiting and regulating the exercise of this power. While the nature of the duties performed by the appellant are not set forth with any fullness in the complaint, it is conceded that he is not a member of the supervising or teaching staff. This section thus provided a limited class of people in the department of education whose salaries may be fixed by the board of education. Section 56 of said charter then in a perfectly logical and systematic manner supplements this provision so far as this department is concerned by providing that: ‘It shall be the duty of the board of aldermen, upon the recommendation of the board of estimate and apportionment, to fix the salary of every officer or person whose compensation is paid out of the city treasury other than day laborers, and teachers, examiners, and members of the supervising staff of the department of education.’ It is argued by the appellant that this section has application only to ‘officers and employés of the city of New York,’ and does not relate to employés of the board of education; but this argument is obviously unsound from the fact that it does expressly mention and take cognizance of teachers who would be in the employ of that department.
If anything were needed to make this perfectly plain language of the present sections plainer, such additional help would be found in a comparison of the sections of the preceding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Lashly v. Becker
...9 Cal. 234; In re Johnson, 98 Cal. 531, 542; Larzelere v. Starkweather, 38 Mich. 96, 100, 101; Holcomb v. Bonnell, 32 Mich. 6, 8; Hogan v. Board, 200 N.Y. 370; Crane Bennett, 177 N.Y. 106; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791, 797; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399, 400; Swan v. Justices, 222 ......
-
State v. Becker
...21 L. R. A. 380; Larzelere v. Starkweather, 38 Mich. loc. cit. 100, 101; Holcomb v. Bonnell, 32 Mich. loc. cit. 8; Hogan v. Board, 200 N. Y. loc. cit. 373, 93 N. E. 951; Crane v. Bennett, 177 N. Y. loc. cit. 112, 69 N. E. 274, 101 Am. St. Rep. 722; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. loc. cit. 706, ......
-
J.A. Preston Corp. v. Fabrication Enterprises, Inc.
...40 N.Y.2d 129, 132-133, 386 N.Y.S.2d 80, 351 N.E.2d 728; Matter of Smathers', 309 N.Y. 487, 495, 131 N.E.2d 896; Hogan v. Board of Educ., 200 N.Y. 370, 373, 93 N.E. 951; Crane v. Bennett, 177 N.Y. 106, 112, 69 N.E. 274). Margolies, like the present case, involved an earlier appeal from the ......
-
Irwin v. Simmons
...273 N.Y. 250, 257, 7 N.E.2d 120, 109 A.L.R. 1110; Gwynne v. Board of Education, 259 N.Y. 191, 196, 181 N.E. 353; Hogan v. Board of Education, 200 N.Y. 370, 373, 93 N.E. 951; Cohens v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 339, 340, 5 L.Ed. 257; Commissioner v. Marshall, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 9......