In re Brownell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brownell

239 A.D. 153, 267 N.Y.S. 92, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7981

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 153 (In re Brownell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brownell, 239 A.D. 153, 267 N.Y.S. 92, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In addition to the reasons given by the Special Term for rejecting these petitions as defective, another and far more important reason might have been assigned.

The petitions clearly contain a number of forged signatures. An examination of pages 104 and 105 of the petition discloses the fact that many of the signatures are in the same handwriting. When these signatures are compared with the admittedly genuine signatures of the parties found in the books of registration, there is no room for doubt.

For the additional reason stated herein the order should be affirmed.

Martin, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ., concur; Finch, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order appealed from and grant the motion.

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

Per Curiam.

In addition to the reasons given by the Special Term for rejecting these petitions as defective, another and far more important reason might have been assigned.

The petitions clearly contain a number of forged signatures. An examination of pages 104 and 105 of the petition discloses the fact that many of the signatures are in the same handwriting. When these signatures are compared with the admittedly genuine signatures of the parties found in the books of registration, there is no room for doubt.

For the additional reason stated herein the order should be affirmed.

Martin, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ., concur; Finch, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order appealed from and grant the motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 153, 267 N.Y.S. 92, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brownell-nyappdiv-1933.