Loeb v. Bien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loeb v. Bien

63 N.Y.S. 202, 49 A.D. 638

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.Y.S. 202 (Loeb v. Bien) 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

Loeb v. Bien, 63 N.Y.S. 202, 49 A.D. 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case coming on for trial before the court and a jury, counsel for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the action cannot be maintained, as chapter 354 of the Laws of 1899 “swept away all remedies existing prior to the act, without any saving clause.” The question as to the application of chapter 354 of the Laws of 1899, where an action had been commenced prior to its passage to recover the penalty prescribed for the failure to file a report, was passed upon in Vineyard Co. v. Fritz (decided Feb. 23, 1900) 62 N. Y. Supp. 775, and it was held that that act did not apply. That decision is controlling, and it follows that the complaint was improperly dismissed.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case coming on for trial before the court and a jury, counsel for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the action cannot be maintained, as chapter 354 of the Laws of 1899 “swept away all remedies existing prior to the act, without any saving clause.” The question as to the application of chapter 354 of the Laws of 1899, where an action had been commenced prior to its passage to recover the penalty prescribed for the failure to file a report, was passed upon in Vineyard Co. v. Fritz (decided Feb. 23, 1900) 62 N. Y. Supp. 775, and it was held that that act did not apply. That decision is controlling, and it follows that the complaint was improperly dismissed.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.Y.S. 202, 49 A.D. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loeb-v-bien-nyappdiv-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack