Bridgeman v. Andrus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bridgeman v. Andrus

247 A.D. 922

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 922 (Bridgeman v. Andrus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridgeman v. Andrus, 247 A.D. 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint upon the merits at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The action is for damages for false imprisonment. Plaintiff complained that the defendants had placed him in custody and maliciously caused Mm to be committed to the Binghamton State Hospital for the Insane at Binghamton, N. Y. Upon the trial it appeared that a petition for plaintiff’s commitment to the State hospital had been made by one of the defendants who was the welfare commissioner of the town where the parties resided. Plaintiff was given notice of the presentation of tMs petition, a hearing was held thereon and plaintiff committed. Two doctors had certified that he was insane. There is no contention that the order of commitment itself was unlawful or unauthorized. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint upon the merits at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The action is for damages for false imprisonment. Plaintiff complained that the defendants had placed him in custody and maliciously caused Mm to be committed to the Binghamton State Hospital for the Insane at Binghamton, N. Y. Upon the trial it appeared that a petition for plaintiff’s commitment to the State hospital had been made by one of the defendants who was the welfare commissioner of the town where the parties resided. Plaintiff was given notice of the presentation of tMs petition, a hearing was held thereon and plaintiff committed. Two doctors had certified that he was insane. There is no contention that the order of commitment itself was unlawful or unauthorized. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridgeman-v-andrus-nyappdiv-1936.