Matter of Lynn v. Nichols

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Lynn v. Nichols

173 N.E. 897, 254 N.Y. 630, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1243

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 22, 1930·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think this case is controlled by the decision in Matter of Gilfillan v. Beyer (124 Misc. Rep. 628; 240 N. Y. 579), where the facts were almost identical.

Nothing that was said in Matter of Callaghan v. Voorhis (252 N. Y. 14) was intended to impair the authority of that decision. The court did no more than apply the principle previously enforced to the particular situation then before it. Indeed, the Gilfillan case was cited as authority.

The order should be affirmed without costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.¿ concur; Crane and Hubbs, JJ., dissent; Lehman, J., not voting.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We think this case is controlled by the decision in Matter of Gilfillan v. Beyer (124 Misc. Rep. 628; 240 N. Y. 579), where the facts were almost identical.

Nothing that was said in Matter of Callaghan v. Voorhis (252 N. Y. 14) was intended to impair the authority of that decision. The court did no more than apply the principle previously enforced to the particular situation then before it. Indeed, the Gilfillan case was cited as authority.

The order should be affirmed without costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.¿ concur; Crane and Hubbs, JJ., dissent; Lehman, J., not voting.

Order affirmed.

Matter of Lynn v. Nichols, 173 N.E. 897, 254 N.Y. 630, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1243 (N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

173 N.E. 897 (Matter of Lynn v. Nichols) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related