Hamlin v. Bender
173 A.D. 996, 159 N.Y.S. 1117
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1916·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
We think no useful purpose will be served by a further discussion here of the questions so fully considered in the opinion below (92 Misc. Rep. 16). The authorities are in conflict and the questions can only be settled by the court of last resort. We agree with the conclusions reached by the trial court and do not concur in the views which prevailed in People v. Hemleb (127 App. Div. 366). All concurred; De Angelis, J., not sitting. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hamlin v. Bender, 173 A.D. 996, 159 N.Y.S. 1117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).
173 A.D. 996 (Hamlin v. Bender) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Rochester v. Premises Located at 10-12 South Washington Street
180 Misc. 2d 17 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Badrow v. Common Council of Tonawanda
43 Misc. 2d 64 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
In re the Estate of Bonesteel
38 Misc. 2d 219 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1963)
United States Gypsum Co. v. Biley-Stoker Corp.
11 Misc. 2d 572 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Twiggar v. Rosenberg
98 Misc. 86 (New York Supreme Court, 1916)
People ex rel. Bender v. Joyce
174 A.D. 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)