Schoenberg v. Taylor — 9 A.D. 236

Majority

p. 236

Alfred J. Schoenberg, Respondent, v. Hubert G. Taylor, as County Treasurer of Kings County, Appellant.

Headnote

Brooklyn — liable for a salai'y accruing since January 1, 1896, of a coal inspector appointed by the board of supervisors of Kings county.

. By section 2 of the Consolidation Act (Chap. 954, Laws of 1895), making charges against the county of Kings liabilities of the city of Brooklyn, the salary for a period subsequent to January 1, 1896, of a coal inspector appointed by the board of supervisors of Kings county is, for the purpose of the enforcement thereof, made a liability of the city of Brooklyn, and proceedings for the purpose of collecting such salary are not maintainable against the county treasurer of Kings county,

.Appeal by the defendant, Hubert G. Taylor,, as county treasurer of Kings county, from an older of the Supreme Court, made at the . Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 12th day of June, 1896, directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue commanding the defendant . to pay the plaintiff his salary for the months of January, February and March, 1896, under his appointment as. coal inspector by the board of supervisors of the county of Kings.

Joseph A. Burr, for the appellant.

. John B. Mey&nborg, for the respondent.

We are of the opinion that this proceeding' cannot be maintained against the appellant as county treasurer, but that the relator must prosecute his claim against the city of Brooklyn or the proper officer thereof. Tike Consolidation Act (Chap. 954, Laws of 189.5, § 2) provides that: “ All charges and liabilities now existing, against said county, or which may hereafter arise or accrue in said city and county, and which but for this act would be charges against or liabilities of said county, shall, from the date aforesaid (to wit, the 1st day. of January, 1896), for the purpose of the enforcement thereof, be deemed and taken to be charges against or liabilities of said corporation, The city of Brooklyn,’ and shall be defrayed or answered unto by it.”

The relator’s claim is for salary for a period subsequent to January 1, 1896, under an employment by the board of supervisors, and

p. 237

falls clearly within the terms of the section quoted. It is unnecessary, therefore, to express any opinion upon the merits of the claim.

The order will be reversed and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.