Case Name: The People ex rel., Robert J. Reynolds et al., v. The Board of Education of the City of Brooklyn
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-06-25
Citations: 17 N.Y. St. Rep. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel., Robert J. Reynolds et al., v. The Board of Education of the City of Brooklyn.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 17
Pages: 683–683

Head Matter:
The People ex rel., Robert J. Reynolds et al., v. The Board of Education of the City of Brooklyn.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed June 25, 1888.)
Brooklyn (city of) board of education—Attendance agents—Cer.TIORARI TO REVIEW ELECTION OF.
The relators had. been attendance agents of the Board of Education of the city of Brooklyn. Their term of office expired on August 2, 1887, and they were not elected as such agents on that day but other agents were elected in their place. Held, that the relators had no status or legal right as attendance agents to review the election of said other agents by certiorari.
Application for writ of certiorari to review the action of the Board of Education of the city of Brooklyn.
Tunis G. Bergen, for relators; Horace Graves, for Board of Education.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an application in behalf of certain •attendance agents of the Board of Education of the city of Brooklyn, to review the action of that board in refusing to recognize the relators as such attendance agents, and pay their salaries.
The relators had been such attendance agents, but they were not elected as such by the board in August, 1887, but other agents were elected in their places.
It is the claim of the relators, that the proceedings of the Board of Education on that election were irregular.
It is a sufficient answer to their claim in that respect, that their term of office expired on the second day of August 1887, and that they were not re-elected. They were never removed from office, but their term of office expired.
Having no official status, therefore they have no legal rights as such officers, and it was beyond the power and duty of the Board of Education to recognize them as such.
The proceeding of the defendant should be affirmed, with -costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.