In re Barbour

52 How. Pr. 94
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 How. Pr. 94 (In re Barbour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 How. Pr. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-barbour-nysupct-1876.