In re Blumenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Blumenthal

169 A.D. 918

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1915·No. Appeal No. 2; Appeal No. 3; Appeal No. 4·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

As direct issues of fact are presented upon the moving and answering, and replying affidavits, the direction for the issuance of a-peremptory writ of mandamus was error. ■ The orders appealed- from are,therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, the motions [919]*919for a peremptory writ denied, and alternative writs granted. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin Clarke and Scott, JJ. Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions denied, and alternative writs of mandamus granted.

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

Per Curiam:

As direct issues of fact are presented upon the moving and answering, and replying affidavits, the direction for the issuance of a-peremptory writ of mandamus was error. ■ The orders appealed- from are,therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, the motions [919]*919for a peremptory writ denied, and alternative writs granted. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin Clarke and Scott, JJ. Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions denied, and alternative writs of mandamus granted.

In re Blumenthal, 169 A.D. 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

169 A.D. 918 (In re Blumenthal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.