Matter of Norton

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Norton

52 N.E. 723, 158 N.Y. 130, 12 E.H. Smith 130, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 655

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 52 N.E. 723 (Matter of Norton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Norton, 52 N.E. 723, 158 N.Y. 130, 12 E.H. Smith 130, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 655 (N.Y. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question presented by this appeal involves the regularity of the filing of a certificate of nomination for the office of senator in the second senatorial district, consisting of Queens county, with the county clerk of that county in the month of October, 1898. It is claimed that the certificate was filed on the last day of the period allowed by statute for that purpose, but after the county clerk’s office had been closed for the day. As the election at which candidates for said office were to be voted for has passed, the- question involved has become abstract by the lapse of time. Not even *131 the question of costs remains, for no costs have thus far been allowed, and none are asked for upon this appeal. It is conceded that no question of practical importance to the parties is presented, but the county clerk, who alone appeals, asks us to entertain the appeal and decide it, because a question of importance to the public is involved.

The general practice of the court is to refuse to decide abstract questions, although in rare instances we have departed from the rule in order to settle doubtful propositions, liable to often arise under our new election law, which,.if left undecided, might result in serious embarrassment throughout the entire state. (Matter of Madden, 148 N. Y. 136; Matter of Fairchild, 151 N. Y. 359.) The question presented by the appeal now before us, however, is not one that can reasonably be expected to arise frequently, and is not of such general interest or importance as to warrant us in devoting time to it that should be spent in the determination of living controversies. While a single case would make little difference, the precedent might bring a multitude upon us and seriously interfere with the disposition of cases of the utmost importance to the parties interested.

The appeal should be dismissed, but without costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The question presented by this appeal involves the regularity of the filing of a certificate of nomination for the office of senator in the second senatorial district, consisting of Queens county, with the county clerk of that county in the month of October, 1898. It is claimed that the certificate was filed on the last day of the period allowed by statute for that purpose, but after the county clerk’s office had been closed for the day. As the election at which candidates for said office were to be voted for has passed, the- question involved has become abstract by the lapse of time. Not even *131 the question of costs remains, for no costs have thus far been allowed, and none are asked for upon this appeal. It is conceded that no question of practical importance to the parties is presented, but the county clerk, who alone appeals, asks us to entertain the appeal and decide it, because a question of importance to the public is involved.

The general practice of the court is to refuse to decide abstract questions, although in rare instances we have departed from the rule in order to settle doubtful propositions, liable to often arise under our new election law, which,.if left undecided, might result in serious embarrassment throughout the entire state. (Matter of Madden, 148 N. Y. 136; Matter of Fairchild, 151 N. Y. 359.) The question presented by the appeal now before us, however, is not one that can reasonably be expected to arise frequently, and is not of such general interest or importance as to warrant us in devoting time to it that should be spent in the determination of living controversies. While a single case would make little difference, the precedent might bring a multitude upon us and seriously interfere with the disposition of cases of the utmost importance to the parties interested.

The appeal should be dismissed, but without costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.E. 723, 158 N.Y. 130, 12 E.H. Smith 130, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-norton-ny-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack