Lewellyn v. Tultz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewellyn v. Tultz

267 A.D. 1039, 48 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6140

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

DecidedMay 17, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D. 1039 (Lewellyn v. Tultz) 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

Lewellyn v. Tultz, 267 A.D. 1039, 48 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to any party and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The denial of appel[1040]*1040lant’s application to intervene in this action is based upon the grounds stated in the opinion rendered by the court below in Laude v. Goodhead (181 Misc. 807), which opinion the court adopted as its opinion in deciding the motion in this ease. While we agree with the statement that appellant has no right or interest in the subject of the action, unless he has the same under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 901 et seq.), we think that, under subdivision (d) of section 205 of the Act [U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 925, subd. (d)], appellant is entitled to an order permitting him to intervene and without limiting or conditioning such right. (See United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 302; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503; Garrett v. Moore-McCormach Co., 317 U. S. 239.) All concur. (The order denies a motion of Prentiss M. Brown, as Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, to intervene as a party, although he was permitted to intervene as amicus curice and submit argument and authorities to the court without the presence of the jury.) Present — Cunningham, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to any party and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The denial of appel[1040]*1040lant’s application to intervene in this action is based upon the grounds stated in the opinion rendered by the court below in Laude v. Goodhead (181 Misc. 807), which opinion the court adopted as its opinion in deciding the motion in this ease. While we agree with the statement that appellant has no right or interest in the subject of the action, unless he has the same under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 901 et seq.), we think that, under subdivision (d) of section 205 of the Act [U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 925, subd. (d)], appellant is entitled to an order permitting him to intervene and without limiting or conditioning such right. (See United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 302; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503; Garrett v. Moore-McCormach Co., 317 U. S. 239.) All concur. (The order denies a motion of Prentiss M. Brown, as Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, to intervene as a party, although he was permitted to intervene as amicus curice and submit argument and authorities to the court without the presence of the jury.) Present — Cunningham, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 1039, 48 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewellyn-v-tultz-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack