Sweeney v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1929 |
| Citation | 251 N.Y. 417,167 N.E. 519 |
| Parties | SWEENEY et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Claim by Michael E. Sweeney and another against the State. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (225 App. Div. 606, 233 N. Y. S. 503), modifying, and as modified affirming, a judgment of the Court of Claims in favor of the claimants, claimants appeal.
Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed in so far as appealed from and that of the Court of Claims modified, and as modified affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
Carlos C. Alden, of Buffalo, for appellants.
Hamilton Ward, Atty. Gen. (Albert J. Danaher, of counsel), for respondent.
Arthur J. Hilly, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (J. Joseph Lilly and Dennis R. O'Brien, both of New York City (of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae.
The Court of Claims, holding that the defendant, the state of New York, had failed to perform its contract with the claimants, gave judgment in claimants' favor for the damages resulting from the breach. These damages were unliquidated when the action was begun, but interest upon the amount recovered was included in the judgment. This was done pursuant to Civil Practice Act, § 480, Laws of 1927, c. 623, which provides that in every action then pending or thereafter brought ‘wherein any sum of money shall be awarded by verdict, report or decision upon a cause of action for the enforcement of or based upon breach of performance of a contract, express or implied, other than a contract to marry, interest shall be recovered upon the principal sum whether theretofore liquidated or unliquidated and shall be added to and be a part of the total sum awarded.’
The Appellate Division held the statute unconstitutional in its retroactive operation, on the ground that the effect was to deprive the state of property without due process of law.
There is no occasion to consider at this time whether the statute, in so far as retroactive, may be sustained against persons other than the state itself. Certain it is that the state which enacted it may not be heard to complain that the enactment is void as a violation of ‘due process.’ City of Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182, 188, 43 S. Ct. 534, 67 L. Ed. 937, 29 A. L. R. 1471;Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160, 27 S. Ct. 188,52 L. Ed. 415,9 Ann. Cas. 736. The award of interest is not in any prohibited sense a charity or bounty. It has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Classified Emp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Anderson
...or injustice on others who were misled to their prejudice into believing that the legislation was valid . . . ."Sweeney v. State, 251 N.Y. 417, 167 N.E. 519 (1929) is a per curiam opinion in which the Court of Claims held that the State of New York had failed to perform its contract with th......
-
Baltimore County v. Churchill, Ltd.
...534, 67 L.Ed. 937 (1923); City of Marshfield v Town of Cameron, 24 Wis.2d 56, 63, 127 N.W.2d 809, 813 (1964); Sweeney v. State, 251 N.Y. 417, 419-420, 167 N.E. 519, 520 (1929); Board of Revenue v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 200 Ala. 532, 533, 76 So. 858, 859 (1917). However, whether the......
-
Henderson v. Twin Falls County
...v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 43 S.Ct. 534, 67 L.Ed. 937, 29 A. L. R. 1471; Cranford Co. v. City of New York, 38 F.2d 52; Sweeney v. State, 251 N.Y. 417, 167 N.E. 519; City of Providence v. Moulton , 52 R.I. 236, 160 75.) The petition for rehearing is denied. Holden, C. J., and Ailshie, J., ......
-
Ruotolo v. State
...'s conclusion. In that regard, we see that in none of the cited cases was the State the defendant. Alternatively, in Sweeney v. State of New York, 251 N.Y. 417, 167 N.E. 519, the State was the sole defendant in a breach of contract action in the Court of Claims. Thereafter, the Civil Practi......