Cohen v. Interurban St. Ry. Co.
This text of 90 N.Y.S. 479 (Cohen v. Interurban St. Ry. 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff did not rely upon the fact of infancy alone to secure a preference under section 791, Code Civ. Proc., [480]*480but other circumstances are specifically set forth in the moving papers upon which the discretion of the court might well have been exercised. Morse v. Press Publishing Co., 71 App. Div. 352, 75 N. Y. Supp. 976; Eising v. Young, 38 Misc. Rep. 12, 76 N. Y. Supp. 698.
It is further claimed that the order was made in violation of rule 3 of the City Court, but no objection upon this ground was taken in the court below, and it cannot be presented for the first time on appeal.
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 N.Y.S. 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-interurban-st-ry-co-nyappterm-1904.