In re Warth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Warth

225 A.D. 811

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1929·Published

Opinion

The court had power to entertain the proceeding. (Sherman v. Yankee Products Corporation, 201 App. Div. 647.) It could, in the exercise of discretion, decline to use it (Schell v. Mayor, etc., 128 N. Y. 67) and we are of the opinion that that discretion was properly exercised in. the case at bar. The order is, therefore, modified by striking out the words “ and the court is without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding,” and as so modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur.

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

The court had power to entertain the proceeding. (Sherman v. Yankee Products Corporation, 201 App. Div. 647.) It could, in the exercise of discretion, decline to use it (Schell v. Mayor, etc., 128 N. Y. 67) and we are of the opinion that that discretion was properly exercised in. the case at bar. The order is, therefore, modified by striking out the words “ and the court is without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding,” and as so modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur.

In re Warth, 225 A.D. 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

225 A.D. 811 (In re Warth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related