Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. WILLIAM H. RAY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BURRILL, Comptroller of the city of Brooklyn, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1878-05
Citations: 21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 224
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. WILLIAM H. RAY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BURRILL, Comptroller of the city of Brooklyn, Respondent.
Judges: Present — Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J. Gilbert, J., not sitting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 21
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. WILLIAM H. RAY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BURRILL, Comptroller of the city of Brooklyn, Respondent.
President of Board of Aldermen in Broooklyn — acting as mayor in the latter’s absence — nut entitled to additional compensation therefor.
Appeal from an order denying a motion for a mandamus.
The relator is an alderman of the city of Brooklyn and presi-' dent of the board. By the amended charter of the city the duties- of mayor are devolved upon the president of the board of aldermen, ■whenever that officer is prevented from attending to them himself. During the months of June, July and August-, 1877, the mayor of the city ivas absent for several days, and the relator performed the duties of his office, and now wants a mandamus from the court to compel the city comptroller to pay him for his services while so acting at the rate of $7,500 a year.
The court at General Term said': “ In our view of the case there is neither principle nor authority for the claim. The salary of the relator as president of the board of aldermen is $2,500 a year. Pie accepted the position in full view of all the duties and responsibilities which it imposed upon him, and he knew that he was liable to be called on to perform the duties of mayor, and that when so called on the law required his compliance. His salary was fixed with reference to all this, and the amount named was intended as full compensation for all his services. The statute gives no extra compensation to the - relator, and for the court to award it in the absence of any such provision would be entirely without precedent so far as our research has extended.”
The order appealed from should be affirmed with costs.
Jesse Johnson, for the relator.
D. JP. Barnard, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Dykman, J.
Present — Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J. Gilbert, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements.