Home/The Superior Court of New York City/Albert Palmer Co. v. Van Orden

Albert Palmer Co. v. Van Orden

64 How. Pr. 79
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedNovember 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 64 How. Pr. 79 (Albert Palmer Co. v. Van Orden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Palmer Co. v. Van Orden, 64 How. Pr. 79 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

Opinion

Freedman, J.

I still adhere to the views expressed by me in McCabe agt. Fogg. In reading the cases cited to the contrary it must be constantly borne in mind that the amendment of section 66, which is relied on by the plaintiff’s attorney, was made in 1879, and not before. The motion must therefore be denied, with ten dollars costs; but as the question is one which should be settled in this court the defendant, in case of appeal to the general term, may have a stay.

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

Related

Taylor v. St. Louis Transit Co.
97 S.W. 155 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Potter v. Ajax Mining Co.
57 P. 270 (Utah Supreme Court, 1899)
Dienst v. McCaffrey
32 N.Y.S. 818 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Keeler v. Keeler
4 N.Y.S. 580 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Quinlan v. Birge
50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 483 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
Whittaker v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R.
18 Abb. N. Cas. 11 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1886)
Whitaker v. New York & Harlem Railroad
3 N.Y. St. Rep. 537 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 How. Pr. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-palmer-co-v-van-orden-nysuperctnyc-1882.