In re Warth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Warth

225 A.D. 811

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D. 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-warth-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack