Bell v. Karsch Brewing Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. Karsch Brewing Co.

52 Misc. 159, 101 N.Y.S. 803

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 Misc. 159 (Bell v. Karsch Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Karsch Brewing Co., 52 Misc. 159, 101 N.Y.S. 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Gildersleeve, J.

This is a summary proceeding. The petition alleged “ that said petitioners are the landlords of the premises hereinafter described.” This was the only allegation therein, setting forth or attempting to set forth the interest of the petitioners in said premises as required by section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This statement has repeatedly been held to be insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court to entertain these proceedings. Ferber v. Apfel, 99 N. Y. Supp. 215, and cases there cited. Prompt objection to the form of the petition was made by the defendant herein, but without avail, and a final order in the landlords’ favor was made. It must be reversed.

Eitzgebald and Davis, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, with- costs tc appellant.

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

Gildersleeve, J.

This is a summary proceeding. The petition alleged “ that said petitioners are the landlords of the premises hereinafter described.” This was the only allegation therein, setting forth or attempting to set forth the interest of the petitioners in said premises as required by section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This statement has repeatedly been held to be insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court to entertain these proceedings. Ferber v. Apfel, 99 N. Y. Supp. 215, and cases there cited. Prompt objection to the form of the petition was made by the defendant herein, but without avail, and a final order in the landlords’ favor was made. It must be reversed.

Eitzgebald and Davis, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, with- costs tc appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Misc. 159, 101 N.Y.S. 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-karsch-brewing-co-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack