Balch v. City of Utica
59 N.Y.S. 1098
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Balch v. City of Utica. Read the opinion of the Court — 42 A.D. 567 →
Opinion
Order appealed from reversed, upon the ground that the judgment against the defendant Kinney, granting affirmative relief to his Co-defendants, is invalid, for reasons given on the appeal from the order denying the motion of the defendant Kinney to modify the judgment, in the opinion of Nash, J., reported in 59 N. Y. Supp. 516; $10 costs of this appeal, and disbursements, and $10 costs of motion at special term, to the appellant Kinney against the respondents city of Utica, John A. Cantwell, and Henry Stappenbeck.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Balch v. City of Utica, 59 N.Y.S. 1098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).
59 N.Y.S. 1098 (Balch v. City of Utica) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Balch v. City of Utica
42 A.D. 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)