Marando v. T. A. Gillespie Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marando v. T. A. Gillespie Co.

54 A.D. 488

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1900·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

appealed must be us does not contain the pleadings in the action, nor is there anything in it from which we are able to determine that the plaintiff is entitled to the preference- claimed. Such right cannot be inferred solely from the title of the action. (Roberts v. Jenkins, 52 App. Div. 491.)

The order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present—-Van Bbunt, P. J., RumseY, Patterson, O’Bbien and McLaughlin, JJ. . .

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements;

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

Per Curiam:

appealed must be us does not contain the pleadings in the action, nor is there anything in it from which we are able to determine that the plaintiff is entitled to the preference- claimed. Such right cannot be inferred solely from the title of the action. (Roberts v. Jenkins, 52 App. Div. 491.)

The order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present—-Van Bbunt, P. J., RumseY, Patterson, O’Bbien and McLaughlin, JJ. . .

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements;

Marando v. T. A. Gillespie Co., 54 A.D. 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

54 A.D. 488 (Marando v. T. A. Gillespie Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related