
    The People ex rel. Henry W. Stephens, Resp’t, v. John Barden, Mayor of the City of Ithaca, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
    
    
      Filed February 15, 1890.)
    
    'Veteba.ks—Mabdamus.
    A peremptory mandamus cannot "be granted requiring the appointment of an honorably discharged Union soldier to the office of collector of taxes.
    
      {People ex rel. Sally. Little Falls, 29 N. Y. State Rep., 723, followed.)’
    Appeal from an order of the special term granted April 6, 1889, ordering “a peremptory mandamus to issue out of and under the seal of this court, directed to the said John Barden, as mayor .of the city of Ithaca, commanding him forthwith to appoint the relator, the said Henry W. Stephens, collector of taxes of the city of Ithaca, and that said writ of mandamus be made returnable at a special term appointed to be held at the court house in the village of Watkins, in and for Schuyler county, on the 18th day of June, ,1889.”
    On the 6th day of May, 1889, pursuant to the order a writ was issued to John Barden, as mayor of the city of Ithaca, commanding him to “ appoint" the said Henry W. Stephens to the office of •collector of taxes of the city of Ithaca."
    
      De F. Van Vleet, for app’lt; Crawford, Almy, for resp’t.
   Hardin, P. J.

The principal questions involved in this case have been passed upon by this court in the decision of the case of The People of the State of New York ex rel. H. Clay Hall v. The Village of Little Falls, decided at the November term (1889) of this court, upon the opinion of Williams, J., delivered at special term. 29 N. Y. State Rep., 723. See also Lockwood v. Trustees of the Village of Saratoga Springs, 26 N. Y. State Rep., 57; People ex rel. Francis et al. v. Common Council of the City of Troy, 78 N. Y., 33; People ex rel. v. Chapin, comptroller, 104 N. Y., 96; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 588.

The questions are not open for discussion in this court, and it is -our duty to follow the decision made in that case. We think the •order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for a mandamus denied.

Martin and Merwin, JJ., concur.  