Bechtle v. Manhattan Ry. Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Bechtle v. Manhattan Ry. Co.

30 N.Y.S. 410, 31 Abb. N. Cas. 483, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 120

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedMay 15, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 N.Y.S. 410 (Bechtle v. Manhattan Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bechtle v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 30 N.Y.S. 410, 31 Abb. N. Cas. 483, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 120 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BISOHOFF, J.

Section 460 of the Code makes it mandatory upon the court to allow a party to sue as a poor person in a case where the required facts are made to appear. Shapiro v. Burns, 31 Abb. N. C. 144, 27 N. Y. Supp. 980. But these applications are not encouraged, and the statute is to be construed strictly. Moore v. Cooley, 2 Hill, 412; Brown v. Story, 1 Paige, 588. That the statute relates to personal actions, and, with the expressed exception in the case of an infant suing by guardian ad litem, provides no justification for extending its application to persons acting in a representative capacity, is, I think, apparent upon a careful reading, Code Civ. Proc. § 458 et seq. With regard to responsibility for costs, a committee of a lunatic is placed in the same category with administrators and other representative parties. Code Civ. Proc. § 3271. And I can find no more justification for granting such an application upon motion by a committee than would exist in a case where an administrator so petitions. Such a petition the special term has denied. In re Bengtoon, Law J. Feb. 8,1894, per Pryor, J.¹ Motion denied. Ho costs.

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

BISOHOFF, J.

Section 460 of the Code makes it mandatory upon the court to allow a party to sue as a poor person in a case where the required facts are made to appear. Shapiro v. Burns, 31 Abb. N. C. 144, 27 N. Y. Supp. 980. But these applications are not encouraged, and the statute is to be construed strictly. Moore v. Cooley, 2 Hill, 412; Brown v. Story, 1 Paige, 588. That the statute relates to personal actions, and, with the expressed exception in the case of an infant suing by guardian ad litem, provides no justification for extending its application to persons acting in a representative capacity, is, I think, apparent upon a careful reading, Code Civ. Proc. § 458 et seq. With regard to responsibility for costs, a committee of a lunatic is placed in the same category with administrators and other representative parties. Code Civ. Proc. § 3271. And I can find no more justification for granting such an application upon motion by a committee than would exist in a case where an administrator so petitions. Such a petition the special term has denied. In re Bengtoon, Law J. Feb. 8,1894, per Pryor, J.¹ Motion denied. Ho costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.Y.S. 410, 31 Abb. N. Cas. 483, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bechtle-v-manhattan-ry-co-nyctcompl-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack