In re Lacey

227 A.D. 673
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The motion is granted and stay continued on the ground that the Supreme Court has no inherent common-law powers in an election case, but only such powers as are expressly conferred by the statute. The powers expressly conferred shall be liberally construed but the court cannot assume a power not granted by the Election Law. It is conceded that no express statutory authority has been conferred upon the Supreme Court to deal summarily with the subject-matter of this litigation. The applicants, we think, have slept upon their rights. (Election Law, §§ 183, 184.) Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman and Whitmyer, JJ., concur; Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., dissent, each with a memorandum.

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

In re Lacey, 227 A.D. 673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

227 A.D. 673 (In re Lacey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth ex rel. Dick v. Blaker
19 Pa. D. & C. 514 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1933)