McBride v. Murray

25 N.Y.S. 431, 72 Hun 394, 79 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 394, 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 487
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 13, 1893·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

TEE CURIAM.

• It is undoubtedly true that a mandamus Will lie to compel an inferior tribunal to decide an action or proceeding pending before it; but where the court or judge or justice disposes of the proceeding by decision, even though such decision he manifestly erroneous, it cannot be reviewed upon mandamus. Cases cited in Fiero, Spec. Proc. p. 56. In the case at bar the justice determined that he had not jurisdiction, and that disposed of the -action or proceeding pending before him. Whether he had jurisdiction or not must be reviewed in the ordinary way. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

McBride v. Murray, 25 N.Y.S. 431, 72 Hun 394, 79 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 394, 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 487 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

25 N.Y.S. 431 (McBride v. Murray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keen v. Mirabile
48 Misc. 2d 382 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Kahn v. Backer
21 A.D.2d 171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Lorberblatt v. McDonald
10 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
609 Holding Corp. v. Burke
202 Misc. 709 (New York Supreme Court, 1952)
Kelsey v. Church
112 A.D. 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)