# People ex rel. Sage v. Schuyler

> New York Supreme Court · January 15, 1879 · 24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6123375

## Case

- **Full name:** THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ORRIN W. SAGE v. GEORGE W. SCHUYLER, Auditor of the Canal Department
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 15, 1879
- **Citations:** 24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Learned
- **Judges:** Boardman, Learned, Tappan
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6123375

## Opinion text

Learned, P. J.:
While 1 agree with much of the opinion of my brother Board-man, there is one important respect as to which I must disagree, and that is on the question of ratification by the act of 1875. The very ground of any ratification (by the Legislature or by any other party) must be Icnowledge.
*109 the action in the auditor’s office does not sbow knowledge in the Legislature. And especially it is not proved that the Legislature had knowledge of the illegality of these contracts. (People ex rel. Wasson v. Schuyler, 69 N. Y., 242 .) If the language of the act expressly included the certificates the case would be quite different. But it does not. And therefore, when the act is claimed to be a ratification only, it should appear plainly that the Legislature, with knowledge of the circumstances respecting these certificates, must have intended by this appropriation in general language to ratify them. I do not think that such knowledge is shown, and I am of the opinion, therefore, that the judgment on the referee’s report should be reversed, with costs.
TappaN, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6123375. Public record. Not legal advice.