Case ID: thomp-cook_3/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "E. Darwin Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hagerty, overseer, etc., v. Agan, appellant.
    
      Excise law—actions for penalties—by whom to be brought.
    
    The act to incorporate the city of Borne (Laws of 1870, ch. 25) provides that the overseer of the poor shall have the same powers and duties as overseers of the poor in any town of the county of Oneida, except as otherwise provided therein. Reid, that this gave to the overseer of the poor of said city the same power to sue for penalties for the violation of the excise law, as are possessed hy overseers of the poor in the towns, under the act of 1873 (Laws of 1873, ch. 820).
    Appeal from an order made at a special term, overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
    The plaintiff, James Hagerty, as overseer of the poor of the city of Eome, sued Hiram Agan to recover penalties alleged to have been incurred by the defendant in selling strong and spirituous liquors, in quantities less than five gallons, without a license. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the grounds that it did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the plaintiff had not legal capacity"to sue. The court overruled the demurrer and ordered judgment for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to answer on terms.
    
      
      C. W. White, for appellant.
    
      K. Carroll, for respondent.
   E. Darwin Smith, J.

The order was affirmed upon the grounds stated in the head-note, which contains the material part of the opinion.

Order affirmed.