Duff v. Mayor of New York

The Superior Court of New York City

Duff v. Mayor of New York

28 Jones & S. 29, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 230, 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 29

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 10, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Jones & S. 29 (Duff v. Mayor of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duff v. Mayor of New York, 28 Jones & S. 29, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 230, 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 29 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are disposed to apply the reasoning in Meyer v. The Mayor, et al., 14 Daly, 395, and Denair v. The City of Brooklyn, 5 N. Y. Supp., 835, to the facts of this case.

The intent of the legislature must be sought, and governs. The act of 1886 and surrounding circumstances cause the opinion that it was not the legislative intent that a notice of intention other than such as is conveyed by the service of a summons and complaint should be required to be filed in cases where the action is brought within six months of the time when the cause of action accrued. Reining, et al., v. The City of Buffalo, 102 N. Y., 308, and Babcock v. The Mayor, et al., 56 Hun, 196, are distinguishable from the present case. In the Babcock case the action was commenced more than six months after the accident happened.

Plaintiff’s exceptions should be sustained, the order of dismissal vacated and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

We are disposed to apply the reasoning in Meyer v. The Mayor, et al., 14 Daly, 395, and Denair v. The City of Brooklyn, 5 N. Y. Supp., 835, to the facts of this case.

The intent of the legislature must be sought, and governs. The act of 1886 and surrounding circumstances cause the opinion that it was not the legislative intent that a notice of intention other than such as is conveyed by the service of a summons and complaint should be required to be filed in cases where the action is brought within six months of the time when the cause of action accrued. Reining, et al., v. The City of Buffalo, 102 N. Y., 308, and Babcock v. The Mayor, et al., 56 Hun, 196, are distinguishable from the present case. In the Babcock case the action was commenced more than six months after the accident happened.

Plaintiff’s exceptions should be sustained, the order of dismissal vacated and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Jones & S. 29, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 230, 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duff-v-mayor-of-new-york-nysuperctnyc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack