Case Name: ABRAM VAN SICKLEN and Others, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF QUEENS COUNTY, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1884-02
Citations: 39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 62
Docket Number: 
Parties: ABRAM VAN SICKLEN and Others, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF QUEENS COUNTY, Defendants.
Judges: Present — BarNArd, P. J., DykmaN and Pratt, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 39
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
ABRAM VAN SICKLEN and Others, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF QUEENS COUNTY, Defendants.
Supervisors — no other compensation can Tie allowed to them than that provided in' chapter of 1881 — No extra compensation can he allowed for services rendered., upon committees. '■
CONTROVERSY submitted, upon a statement of facts agreed to by the parties, as provided in section 1279 of the Code of Civil. Procedure.
The question in dispute was whether the board of supervisors of Queens county could lawfully audit and allow a per diem allowance - of three, dollars to members of the board for committee work done ■ by them at times other than at sessions of the board. The defendant claimed that they were authorized to make such allowances by section 8 of chapter 482 of 1875, as amended by chapter 25?' of 1876.
The court at General Term said: “ Chapter 97, Laws of 1881y. prescribing the compensation of supervisors, declares that no other • compensation, fee, charge or allowance of any land shall be made to any supervisor for his services, and that any supervisor who shall receive or vote for any allowance in violation of this section 'shall’ be guilty of a misdemeanor. The effect of this section is to repeal the provision of the law of 1876, by which supervisors were allowed' pay for services upon committee, even without the words of express repeal found in the latter part of the section. Chapter 58, Laws - of 1882, does not authorize payment for services upon committees. It follows that the credit of the defendants of three 'dollars per day was illegal and void.”
John Fleming, for the plaintiffs. -
John J. Armstrong, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Pratt, J.
Present — BarNArd, P. J., DykmaN and Pratt, JJ.
Judgment for plaintiffs upon submitted case.