Lowe v. Sheldon

New York Court of Appeals

Lowe v. Sheldon

11 N.E.2d 329, 276 N.Y. 1, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1024

New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 16, 1937·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are in agreement with the Appellate Division in the conclusion which it reached. We are of the opinion, however, that the amendment of section 139 of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60), under the facts of this case, effected a mere change of procedure and was, therefore, constitutional even between private parties. (Cf. Curtis v. Whitney, 80 U. S. 68; Conley v. Barton, 260 U. S. 677.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

We are in agreement with the Appellate Division in the conclusion which it reached. We are of the opinion, however, that the amendment of section 139 of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60), under the facts of this case, effected a mere change of procedure and was, therefore, constitutional even between private parties. (Cf. Curtis v. Whitney, 80 U. S. 68; Conley v. Barton, 260 U. S. 677.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

Lowe v. Sheldon, 11 N.E.2d 329, 276 N.Y. 1, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1024 (N.Y. 1937).

Pincite

11 N.E.2d 329 (Lowe v. Sheldon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related