Case ID: ny_160/html/0691-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John O’Brien et al., Respondents, v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Appellant. Walston H. Brown, as Receiver of Brown, Howard & Company, Respondent, v. Same, Appellant.
    (Argued October 3, 1899;
    decided October 17, 1899.)
    
      O’Brien v. The Mayor, 40 App. Div. 331, affirmed.
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 12, 1899, affirming an order of Special Term denying defendant’s motion to set aside certain judgments entered in the above-entitled actions.
    The question certified is as follows : “ Had the counsel to the corporation, with the" concurrence and upon the recommendation of the mayor, the comptroller and aqueduct commissioners, the chief engineer of the aqueduct commission and the special counsel retained by the city in the particular case, power to offer to confess- judgment against the defendants in an action brought to recover an amount claimed to be due to plaintiffs upon a contract, made. under chapter 490, Laws of 1883, and where there was an actual controversy between the contractors (the plaintiffs in the action) and the defendants as to the amount due the plaintiffs under the said contract for a sum of money very much less than that claimed by the plaintiffs in the action, and where the counsel to the corporation and the other public officials named, being all of the public officials who had any authority or power under the statute creating the aqueduct commissions or under the other statutes in force at the time the offer was made in relation to the subject-matter of the contract, approve of the offer of judgment as a settlement of the controversy advantageous to the city of New York, and where, as a fact, such a settlement was advantageous to the city, the offer of judgment having . been made and accepted by the plaintiffs, and judgment entered thereon upon the 27th day of December, 1897 ? ”
    
      John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (Charles Blandy■ of counsel), for appellant.
    
      L. Laflin, Kellogg and Alfred, C. Petté for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative, on the prevailing opinion below.

All concur.