Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Bedell 106

77 N.E 789

Dill v. Wheeler

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 1, 1906

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1906-05-01

The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The court had full power to review the action of the civil service commission in this proceeding. (Matter of Keiner, 148 N. Y. 219; People ex rel. Sweet v. Lyman, 157 N. Y. 368; People ex rel. Mesick v. Scannell, 63 App. Div. 246 ; Matter of Shaughnessy v. Fornes, 73 App.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1906-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1948

10 state decisions

5019061910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cullen, Ch. J.

¶1 The relator was appointed a battalion chief in the fire department of the city of Buffalo on July *107 lltli, 1904. The municipal civil service commission refused to certify to relator’s pay because he had not taken a competitive examination and his name not been placed on the eligible list for that position. Thereupon he applied for a writ of mandamus to the civil service commission requiring it to reclassify the position held by him and place the same in the exempt class and to certify to his salary. The application was denied at Special Term, and the order entered thereon was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

¶2 While we have hold in the case of People ex rel. Schau v. McWilliams (ante, p. 92) that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct an illegal or erroneous classification by the civil service commission, the views there expressed, that the position or office of battalion chief in the fire department of Buffalo is one of that character the classification of which rests in the discretion and judgment of the civil service commission and is not properly the subject of review by the courts, dispose of this application.

¶3 The order of the Appellate Division must, therefore, be affirmed, but, under the circumstances, without costs to either party in this court.

¶4 O’Brien, Haight, Vann, Werner and Willard Bartlett, JJ., concur; Hiscook, J., not sitting.

¶5 Order affirmed.

/23/bedell/106 · .json · Public domain