Adriance v. Mayor of New-York

New York Supreme Court

Adriance v. Mayor of New-York

1 Barb. 19

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 7, 1847

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 Barb. 19 (Adriance v. Mayor of New-York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adriance v. Mayor of New-York, 1 Barb. 19 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

Edmonds, J.

I have my doubts whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere in such a case as this. But as the defendants, by suffering the bill to be taken as confessed, have [20]*20conceded the jurisdiction of the court, as well as admitted their own delinquency, I do not know that I ought to refuse the relief asked for. Were it a clear case of want of jurisdiction, I should feel obliged, ex mero motu, to deny the application. But as I am not clear on the point of jurisdiction, I do not think I ought to permit my doubts to operate so far as to deny the relief asked for; when the defendants have confessed as well jurisdiction as title to relief. The bill showing that the appropriation for the Mexican volunteers has been already paid, the injunction of course will be granted only in regard to the other item.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Edmonds, J.

I have my doubts whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere in such a case as this. But as the defendants, by suffering the bill to be taken as confessed, have [20]*20conceded the jurisdiction of the court, as well as admitted their own delinquency, I do not know that I ought to refuse the relief asked for. Were it a clear case of want of jurisdiction, I should feel obliged, ex mero motu, to deny the application. But as I am not clear on the point of jurisdiction, I do not think I ought to permit my doubts to operate so far as to deny the relief asked for; when the defendants have confessed as well jurisdiction as title to relief. The bill showing that the appropriation for the Mexican volunteers has been already paid, the injunction of course will be granted only in regard to the other item.

Hca Health Services of Virginia, Incorporated v. Amerihealth, Incorporated, and Its Attached Affiliates Employee Health Care Plan, and Sit 'N Sleep Centers, Incorporated, Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Hca Health Services of Virginia, Incorporated, and Sit 'N Sleep Centers, Incorporated, Employee Welfare Benefit Plan v. Amerihealth, Incorporated, and Its Attached Affiliates Employee Health Care Plan

67 F.3d 295 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)

Edward Farid Morgan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

34 F.3d 1073 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Moore v. Fenex, Incorporated

809 F.2d 297 (Sixth Circuit, 1987)

Roosevelt v. Draper

7 Abb. Pr. 108 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)

Wood v. Draper

4 Abb. Pr. 322 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Barb. 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adriance-v-mayor-of-new-york-nysupct-1847.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack