In re the Objections to Petitions of Electors of Newburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Objections to Petitions of Electors of Newburgh

97 A.D. 438, 3 Liquor Tax Rep. 443, 89 N.Y.S. 1065

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 A.D. 438 (In re the Objections to Petitions of Electors of Newburgh) 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 the Objections to Petitions of Electors of Newburgh, 97 A.D. 438, 3 Liquor Tax Rep. 443, 89 N.Y.S. 1065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinions

Willard Bartlett, J. :

I think we ought to dismiss this appeal. The proceeding appears to have been instituted by a petition and affidavit upon which an order was granted returnable before a Special Term of the Supreme Court, requiring the town clerk of the town of Newburgh to show cause why certain petitions filed with him relative to the submission of certain local option questions under the Liquor Tax Law

* should not be declared invalid, and why the same should not be set aside, and why he should not be restrained from printing ballots for the submission of the questions aforesaid. The application was of a summary nature, and it appears to have been supposed that there was jurisdiction to entertain it either on the part of the Supreme Court or a justice thereof, under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 909, as amd. by Laws of 1901, chap. 654). An examination of these sections, however, shows that they [440]*440have no reference whatever to petitions or other proceedings under the Liquor Tax Law, but that they relate solely to certificates of nomination under the provisions of the Election Law. The attempt to bring questions concerning the local option provisions of the Liquor Tax Law before the court by a summary proceeding under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law appears to me to have been wholly without authority. The court below, therefore, possessed no jurisdiction to pass one way or the other upon the sufficiency of the petitions. It would have been different in an injunction suit by a taxpayer to restrain action by the town clerk; but such was not the nature of this proceeding. Inasmuch as the-'dourt at Special Term possessed no jurisdiction, I think the proper course for this court is neither to affirm nor reverse its decision, but to dismiss the appeal.

All concurred (Hooker, J., in separate memorandum).

See statute cited in opinion of Hooker, J., post, page 440.— [Rep.

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

Willard Bartlett, J. :

I think we ought to dismiss this appeal. The proceeding appears to have been instituted by a petition and affidavit upon which an order was granted returnable before a Special Term of the Supreme Court, requiring the town clerk of the town of Newburgh to show cause why certain petitions filed with him relative to the submission of certain local option questions under the Liquor Tax Law

* should not be declared invalid, and why the same should not be set aside, and why he should not be restrained from printing ballots for the submission of the questions aforesaid. The application was of a summary nature, and it appears to have been supposed that there was jurisdiction to entertain it either on the part of the Supreme Court or a justice thereof, under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 909, as amd. by Laws of 1901, chap. 654). An examination of these sections, however, shows that they [440]*440have no reference whatever to petitions or other proceedings under the Liquor Tax Law, but that they relate solely to certificates of nomination under the provisions of the Election Law. The attempt to bring questions concerning the local option provisions of the Liquor Tax Law before the court by a summary proceeding under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law appears to me to have been wholly without authority. The court below, therefore, possessed no jurisdiction to pass one way or the other upon the sufficiency of the petitions. It would have been different in an injunction suit by a taxpayer to restrain action by the town clerk; but such was not the nature of this proceeding. Inasmuch as the-'dourt at Special Term possessed no jurisdiction, I think the proper course for this court is neither to affirm nor reverse its decision, but to dismiss the appeal.

All concurred (Hooker, J., in separate memorandum).

See statute cited in opinion of Hooker, J., post, page 440.— [Rep.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D. 438, 3 Liquor Tax Rep. 443, 89 N.Y.S. 1065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-objections-to-petitions-of-electors-of-newburgh-nyappdiv-1904.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack