Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. BUSHNELL v. ANDERSON, School Trustee
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-03-19
Citations: 75 N.Y.S. 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. BUSHNELL v. ANDERSON, School Trustee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 75
Pages: 240–240

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. BUSHNELL v. ANDERSON, School Trustee.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 19, 1902.)
Mandamus—School Trustee—Money Order—Issuing,
Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a school trustee to issue an order for the payment of a bill which has been duly audited and allowed in the manner provided by law, and for which a tax has been levied and collected, and is in the hands of the treasurer.
Appeal from special term, Westchester county.
Mandamus by the people, on the relation of Nathan P. Bushnell, •against David Anderson, school trustee. From an order in- plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, and HIRSCHBERG, JJ.
Eugene B. Travis, for appellant.
Nathan P. Bushnell, pro se.

Opinion:
WOODWARD, J.
There is no merit in this appeal. The court below has directed the appellant, as sole trustee of school district No. 15 of the town of Cortlandt, Westchester county, to issue an order upon the treasurer of the school district for the amount of the relator's bill, which has been duly audited and allowed in the manner provided by law, and a tax has been levied and collected for the payment of the same,' the funds being now in the hands of the treasurer, and there is no reason why he should not obey the order. A reading of the record leads to the conclusion that the appellant is endeavoring to withhold .the money belonging to the relator, and which the taxpayers of the district have ordered paid out of moneys which they have caused to be raised by taxation for the purpose; and, as only a ministerial duty is to be performed, mandamus is the proper remedy, and the relator should not be further delayed. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
•Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.