Hatch v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Hatch v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

16 Jones & S. 389

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedNovember 6, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Jones & S. 389 (Hatch v. Western Union Telegraph Co.) 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

Hatch v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 16 Jones & S. 389 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

The complaint in this case differs from that in the prior action brought by William S. Williams against the Western Union Telegraph Co., and others, by reason of the fact that it contains no charge of fraud against the individual defendants, but does contain, as additional assignments of illegality, averments to the effect that the consolidation of the corporations is against the laws of the States of Ohio [390]*390and Pennsylvania and of the United States, and that the American Union Go. and the Atlantic and Pacific Co. were made defendants; but with these exceptions, the case presents the same questions as were examined and determined in the case of Williams, and substantially the same relief is sought. As the grounds upon which the case last referred to was disposed of at the present time, are necessarily decisive of the appeal in the present case, its distinctive features do not require separate notice.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

The order, granting an allowance, should also be reversed, with $10 costs to abide the event.

Russell and Arnoux, JJ., concurred.

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

Freedman, J.

The complaint in this case differs from that in the prior action brought by William S. Williams against the Western Union Telegraph Co., and others, by reason of the fact that it contains no charge of fraud against the individual defendants, but does contain, as additional assignments of illegality, averments to the effect that the consolidation of the corporations is against the laws of the States of Ohio [390]*390and Pennsylvania and of the United States, and that the American Union Go. and the Atlantic and Pacific Co. were made defendants; but with these exceptions, the case presents the same questions as were examined and determined in the case of Williams, and substantially the same relief is sought. As the grounds upon which the case last referred to was disposed of at the present time, are necessarily decisive of the appeal in the present case, its distinctive features do not require separate notice.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

The order, granting an allowance, should also be reversed, with $10 costs to abide the event.

Russell and Arnoux, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Jones & S. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-western-union-telegraph-co-nysuperctnyc-1882.