In Re Bohnet v. . the Mayor, Etc.

New York Court of Appeals

In Re Bohnet v. . the Mayor, Etc.

44 N.E. 949, 150 N.Y. 279, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 981

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 N.E. 949 (In Re Bohnet v. . the Mayor, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Bohnet v. . the Mayor, Etc., 44 N.E. 949, 150 N.Y. 279, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 981 (N.Y. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Haight, J.

On the 26th day of June, 1896, a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled proceedings upon the application of the relator, *280 commanding the commissioner of public works and the superintendent of incumbrances of the city of York to remove from in front of the Astor House in the city of Hew York certain show cases, valises, signs, trunks, bags and other articles of merchandise, as unlawful incumbrances upon Broadway, one of the public streets of the-city. On the first day of July thereafter this writ was executed by the superintendent of incumbrances, Avho caused the articles mentioned in the Avrit to be removed from the street. Thereafter and on the sixth day of July the appellant Doyle applied to the Supreme Court for an order directing that he be made a party to the proceedings, with leave to appear as such and answer and for a rehearing. This motion was denied, and from an order of the Appellate Division affirming the same this appeal was taken.

This motion must be granted.

The order appealed from rested in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the exercise of the discretion is not reviewable here. Undoubtedly that court had the power to open the proceedings and to allow the appellant to be brought in as a party; but whether this power should be exercised rested in its discretion, and its determination in that respect is not reviewable here, even if the discretion was unwisely exercised. In this respect the same rules apply with reference to proceedings by mandamus as in actions. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2082; Brennan v. Hall, 131 N. Y. 160, 168; White's Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344, 348.)

Our attention has been called to a long list of cases in which the court has permitted persons to be brought in and made parties to such -proceedings; but these cases amount to nothing more than showing the circumstances under which the court has exercised its discretion in permitting persons to intervene.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Haight, J.

On the 26th day of June, 1896, a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled proceedings upon the application of the relator, *280 commanding the commissioner of public works and the superintendent of incumbrances of the city of York to remove from in front of the Astor House in the city of Hew York certain show cases, valises, signs, trunks, bags and other articles of merchandise, as unlawful incumbrances upon Broadway, one of the public streets of the-city. On the first day of July thereafter this writ was executed by the superintendent of incumbrances, Avho caused the articles mentioned in the Avrit to be removed from the street. Thereafter and on the sixth day of July the appellant Doyle applied to the Supreme Court for an order directing that he be made a party to the proceedings, with leave to appear as such and answer and for a rehearing. This motion was denied, and from an order of the Appellate Division affirming the same this appeal was taken.

This motion must be granted.

The order appealed from rested in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the exercise of the discretion is not reviewable here. Undoubtedly that court had the power to open the proceedings and to allow the appellant to be brought in as a party; but whether this power should be exercised rested in its discretion, and its determination in that respect is not reviewable here, even if the discretion was unwisely exercised. In this respect the same rules apply with reference to proceedings by mandamus as in actions. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2082; Brennan v. Hall, 131 N. Y. 160, 168; White's Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344, 348.)

Our attention has been called to a long list of cases in which the court has permitted persons to be brought in and made parties to such -proceedings; but these cases amount to nothing more than showing the circumstances under which the court has exercised its discretion in permitting persons to intervene.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.E. 949, 150 N.Y. 279, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bohnet-v-the-mayor-etc-ny-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack