In re Brush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brush

75 N.Y.S. 285, 69 A.D. 617

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 N.Y.S. 285 (In re Brush) 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 Brush, 75 N.Y.S. 285, 69 A.D. 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In view of the decision of this court in Feeny’s Case, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, affirmed by the court of appeals, 156 N. Y. 36, 50 N. E. 425, we think that the supreme court has jurisdiction by mandamus to direct a recanvass of the votes cast for the office of mayor in the several election districts to which this proceeding relates, save with the exception noted below, and that, in view of the circumstances presented by the moving papers herein, this jurisdiction may properly be exercised in this proceeding, provided the requisite parties, some of whom are not present, are brought in as indicated in our opinion in Stiles’ Case, 75 N. Y. Supp. 278. As to the First district of the First ward, we understand that all parties concede that an alternative writ should issue, and an order will be made therefor.

The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and, save with the exception of the First district of the First ward, as noted supra, an order will be made remitting the proceeding to the special term, to the end that application may there be made for a [286]*286peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding a recanvass of the votes cast therein for the office of mayor at the late election, after the necessary parties have been brought in.

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

PER CURIAM.

In view of the decision of this court in Feeny’s Case, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, affirmed by the court of appeals, 156 N. Y. 36, 50 N. E. 425, we think that the supreme court has jurisdiction by mandamus to direct a recanvass of the votes cast for the office of mayor in the several election districts to which this proceeding relates, save with the exception noted below, and that, in view of the circumstances presented by the moving papers herein, this jurisdiction may properly be exercised in this proceeding, provided the requisite parties, some of whom are not present, are brought in as indicated in our opinion in Stiles’ Case, 75 N. Y. Supp. 278. As to the First district of the First ward, we understand that all parties concede that an alternative writ should issue, and an order will be made therefor.

The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and, save with the exception of the First district of the First ward, as noted supra, an order will be made remitting the proceeding to the special term, to the end that application may there be made for a [286]*286peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding a recanvass of the votes cast therein for the office of mayor at the late election, after the necessary parties have been brought in.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.Y.S. 285, 69 A.D. 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brush-nyappdiv-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack