Korff v. Green

New York Supreme Court

Korff v. Green

16 How. Pr. 140

DecidedJune 15, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 16 How. Pr. 140 (Korff v. Green) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Korff v. Green, 16 How. Pr. 140 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Justice Ingraham,

dismissed the complaint on the ground that by a recent decision of the general term of this court, a tax payer could not obtain an injunction for any damage which, was common to all the tax payers in the city, and that the complaint in such a case must be filed in the name of the attorney-general of the state.

The decision referred to, is given in the opinion of Judge Balcom in regard to the sale of the Fort Cansevoort property. (Ante, pp. 138, 139.)

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

Justice Ingraham,

dismissed the complaint on the ground that by a recent decision of the general term of this court, a tax payer could not obtain an injunction for any damage which, was common to all the tax payers in the city, and that the complaint in such a case must be filed in the name of the attorney-general of the state.

The decision referred to, is given in the opinion of Judge Balcom in regard to the sale of the Fort Cansevoort property. (Ante, pp. 138, 139.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 How. Pr. 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korff-v-green-nysupct-1858.