In re Barbour

52 How. Pr. 94
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Brady, J.

The jurisdiction of the marine court in the action against the relator cannot be disputed. Its exercise has been lawful, and' therefore in accord with the power conferring it. It matters not what is the amount claimed, if the sum finally recovered does not exceed $2,000, exclusive of costs (Chap. 479, Laws 1875). If the recovery were in the action against the relator in excess of the sum named, interest and costs, another order to hold to bail detained the defendant on basis of the judgment, it might be a proper subject of investigation. The relator assigns no lawful reason for his discharge, and the writs must, therefore, be dismissed.

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

In re Barbour, 52 How. Pr. 94 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

52 How. Pr. 94 (In re Barbour) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lewkowicz v. Queen Aeroplane Co.
154 A.D. 142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Lewkowicz v. Queen Aeroplane Co.
77 Misc. 151 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
In re Knoop's Estate
11 N.Y.S. 773 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1890)