« 이전계속 »
Residence, art. II, § 3; legislature, art. III, SS 1, 16. notice does not abrogate the right of action, but merely affects the remedy. Gmaehle v. Rosenberg, 83 App. Div. 339, 82 N. Y. Supp. 366, attirmed, 178 N. Y. 147.
Art. II, § 3. Certain occupations and conditions not to affect residence. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 53.)
A student at a seminary in this state who, before taking up his abode at the seminary had a residence elsewhere within the United States, is not entitled to vote in the election district in which the seminary is situated, unless it appears, that by some unequivocal act, independent of his attendance at the seminary, he has abandoned such other residence. Matter of McCormack, 86 App. Div. 362, 83 N. Y. Supp. 847.
Art. III, s 1. Legislative powers. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 55.)
Legalizing assessment for local improvement.- A statute purporting to legalize an assessment for a local improvement, passed after the entry of a judgment declaring the assessment invalid, is operative so far as it relates to those acts which the legislature might have dispensed with or ordered done before the proceedings were instituted. Loomis v. City of Little Falls, 66 App. Div. 299, 72 N. Y. Supp. 774.
Art. III, § 16. Private and local bills not to embrace more than one subject. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 69.)
Sufficiency of title.- L. 1902, ch. 127, which is entitled “An act to amend chapter two hundred and sixty-one of the laws of eighteen hundred and eighty-five, entitled 'An act in relation to the management of the Albany penitentiary,' relative to the salary of the keeper of such penitentiary," and which authorizes the commission therein named to fix the salary of the superintendent, to discharge the superintendent and place the custody of the penitentiaryy in the hands of the sheriff of Albany county, and, in its discretion, to discontinue such penitentiary and abandon its use as a prison and dispose of the same, violates the above section of the Constitution, since the title does not fully express the subject matter of the law. Corscadden v. Haswell, 88 App. Div. 158, 84 N. Y. Supp. 597, affirmed 177 N. Y. 499.
Chapter 200 of the laws of 1901, entitled “ An act to amend the charter of the city of Rochester relative to expenses incident to improvements," and chapter 719 of the laws of 1901, “An act to amend * * * and to consolidate therewith the several acts in relation to the charter of said city relative to expenses incident to improvements,” both of which contain provisions seeking to legalize every general tax or local assessment upon any property, real or personal, in the city of Rochester are unconstitutional because the subjects embraced by such acts are not expressed or indicated in the titles. Matter of City of Rochester v. Bloss, 77 App. Div, 28, 79 N. Y. Supp. 236, affirmed 173 N. Y. 646.
L. 1897, ch. 687, entitled “ An act conferring additional power upon Legislative bills, art. III, 8S 17, 18.
the town board of the town of Jamaica, Queens county, relative to public lands in such town,” is not in conformity with the above section in so far as the act attempts to ratify and confirm existing leases of public lands belonging to the town. Wenk v. City of New York, 82 App. Div. 584, 81 N. Y. Supp. 583.
Chapter 33 of the laws of 1901, abolishing the board of police commissioners and the office of chief of police of the city of New York, and imposing the duties of those officers upon a single commissioner, is not in conflict with the above section, as embracing more than one subject which is not embraced in this title, since the act embraces but one subject, viz., the reorganization of the police affairs of the city, and that is not only sufficiently but is elaborately expressed in the title. People ex rel. Devery v. Coler, 173 N. Y. 103, affirming 71 App. Div. 584, 76 N. Y. Supp. 205.
Title of escheat bill not descriptive of subject matter.-- L. 1864, ch. 191, entitled “ An act for the relief of the heirs-at-law of William C. Herring, deceased," intended to dispose of lands in the city of New York not described in the statute, and which had escheated to the state, is a private and local bill and void because its purpose is not described in the title. Kelly v. Pratt, 41 Misc. 31, 83 N. Y. Supp. 636.
An act amending article 10 of the tax law, providing for the appointment of transfer tax appraisers in certain counties, is not a local law, and is, therefore, not subject to the objection that it embraces more than one subject which is not expressed in the title. Matter of Wallace, 71 App. Div. 284, 75 N. Y. Supp. 838.
Art. III, § 17. Existing law made applicable to be inserted. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 71.
A statute declaring the Sanitary Code of the city of New York to be binding and in force in such city does not violate the above section. People v. Davis, 78 App. Div. 570, 79 N. Y. Supp. 747.
Art. III, § 18. Amendment adopted by the people at the general election in November, 1901.
Cases in which private and local bills shall not be passed; restrictions as to laws authorizing street railroads.
Section 18. The legislature shall not pass a private or local bill in any of the following cases:
Changing the names of persons.
Laying out, opening, altering, working or discontinuing roads, highways or alleys, or for draining swamps or other low lands.
Locating or changing county seats.
Legislative bills, art. III, SS 18, 27. Selecting, drawing, summoning or impaneling grand or petit jurors.
Regulating the rate of interest on money.
The opening and conducting of elections or designating places of voting
('reating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentage or allowances of public officers, during the term for which said officers are elected or appointed.
Granting to any corporation, association or individual the right to lay down railroad tracks.
Granting to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever.
Granting to any person, association, firin or corporation an exemption from taxation on real or personal property.
Providing for building bridges, and chartering companies for such purposes, except on the Hudson river below Waterford, and on the East river, or over the waters forming a part of the boundaries of the State.
The legislature shall pass general laws providing for the cases enumerated in this section, and for all other cases which in its judgment may be provided for by general laws. But no law shall authorize the construction or operation of a street railroad except upon the condition that the consent of the owners of one-half in value of the property bounded on, and the consent also of the local authorities having the control of that portion of a street or highway upon which it is proposed to construct or operate such .railroad be first obtained, or in case the consent of such property owners cannot be obtained, the appellate division of the supreme court, in the department in which it is proposed to be constructeil, may, upon application, appoint three commissioners who shall determine, after a hearing of all parties interested, whether such railroad ought to be constructed or operated, and their determination, confirmed by the court, may be taken in lieu of the consent of the property owners.
Art. III, $ 27. Local legislative powers. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 77.) "" .. . ; :
. . Commissioners to build court house.- A special 'act (L. 1901, ch. 89) designating certain residents of a county as a commission to erect a court house is not onéonstitutional as depriving a board of superţisors of its legitimate duties. The legislature may by special act, depriye, a
Compensation art. III, S 28; civil service, art. V, 89; Supreme Court, art. VI, 51.
board of supervisors of the right to build a court house. People ex rel. Commissioners v. Supervisors, 36 Misc. 597, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1098, affirmed, 170 N. Y. 105.
Art. Ill, $ 28. Extra compensation prohibited. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 78.)
Act authorizing payment of pension to retired teachers.--- L. 1900, ch. 725, directing the board of education of New York city to pay a pension to teachers who had retired prior to the establishment of the pension system under the act of 1894, is unconstitutionat, since it provides for an appropriation of city moneys to persons who had been employes at a time when no pension system was in existence, and must, therefore, be regarded as extra compensation to a public servant within the prohibition of the above section. Matter of Mahon v. Board of Education, 171 N. Y. 263, affirming, 68 App. Div. 154, 74 N. Y. Supp. 172.
Art. V, $ 9. Civil service appointments and promotions. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 86.)
Notice required of veteran.- A veteran of the civil war, who desires to avail himself of the provisions of this section, must give to the appointing power notice of the facts which entitle him to the constitutional privilege. Such a notice served after he had been dismissed is ineffectual to secure his reinstatement. People ex rel. Dixon v. Simonson, 64 App. Div. 312, 72 N. Y. Supp. 84.
Power to limit removal of veteran.- Although this section of the Constitution contains no provivsion that a veteran shall be continued in the public service in preference to other employes, the legislature may place a limit upon the removal of veterans employed in the public service. Matter of Stutzbach v. Coler, 168 N. Y. 416, affirming, 62 App. Div. 219, 70 N. Y. Supp. 901.
Appointment of veterang.-- Where an eligible list consists of three names, one of whom is a veteran, the requirement that the appointing power must appoint such veteran to the office is not unconstitutional, but is authorized by the above section, notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of article 10 of the Constitution. A distinction is made where the eligible list contains the names of two or more veterans, and the appointing power is restricted to the veteran graded highest on the list. In such a case the rule as adopted in People ex rel. Belkam v. Mosher, 163 N. Y. 32, would apply, and the law requiring such an appointment would be unconstitutional as violative of section 2 of article 10. People ex rel. Weintz v. Burch, 79 App. Div. 156, 80 N. Y. Supp. 274; see also People ex rel. Hamilton v. Stratton, 79 App. Div. 149, 80 N. Y. Supp. 269, affirmed, 174 N. Y. 531.
Art. VI, § 1. Supreme Court; how constituted; judicial districts. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 88.)
Review of acts of municipal officer.— The power conferred by this Judiciary, art. VI, $$ 10, 17, 18, 20,
section upon the Supreme Court is not affected by an absolute right conferred by statute upon a municipal officer to determine as to charges brought against an officer appointed by him and to remove such officer if found guilty. People ex rel. Graveline v. Ham, 59 App., Div. 314; 69 X. Y. Supp. 283; see also People ex rel. Howe v. Conway, 59 App. Div. 329, 69 X. Y. Supp. 837.
Art. VI, § 10. Judges not to hold any other office. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 94.)
Appointment of special jury commissioners.- Chapter 378 of the laws of 1896, conferring the power of appointment of special jury commissioners upon justices of the Appellate Division, does not violate the above section. Although such power of appointment is a public trust, the legislature may properly confer it upon justices of the Supreme Court, for the reason that the discharge of the duties of the commissioners aids the justices in the performance of their judicial functions. People v. Hall, 169 N. Y. 184.
Art. VI, § 17. District court judges, etc.
City magistrates.-- L. 1901, ch. 466, amending Greater New York charter, sections 1392, 1394, providing for the election of city magistrates in the borough of Brooklyn, one in each congressional district and two by the borough at large, is unconstitutional, since the last clause of the above section provides that “all other judicial officers in cities, whose election or appointment is not otherwise provided for in this article, shall be chosen by the electors of such city, or appointed by some local authorities thereof." People v. Dooley, 69 App. Div. 512, 75 N. Y. Supp. 350,
Art. VI, § 18. Inferior local courts. (C. & G. Gen. Laws, p. 99.)
New York city magistrates.- It would seem that the courts over which the magistrates of the city of New York preside are “inferior local courts ” within the meaning of the above section, but the election or appointment of such magistrates is excluded from the operation of such section by virtue of the exemption contained therein. People v. Dooley, 69 App. Div. 512, 75 N. Y. Supp. 350.
Art. VI, s 20. No judicial officer except justice of peace to receive fees; not to act as attorney or counsellor. (C. & G. Gien. Laws, p. 100.)
Determination of population.-- The Court of Appeals will not sustain an objection that a referee was disqualified because at the time of his appointment he was county judge of a county having more than 120,000 inhabitants, where the last public record preceding his appointment shows the population to have been less than 120,000, although in fact