Metropolitan Tr. Co. of the City of New York v. . Bishop

New York Court of Appeals

Metropolitan Tr. Co. of the City of New York v. . Bishop

143 N.E. 762, 237 N.Y. 607, 1924 N.Y. LEXIS 911

New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 1, 1924·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon all the facts set out in the record on appeal we think the court had jurisdiction to determine that the respondent Abigail Hancock Bishop was a proper party defendant and to bring her into the action.

None of the questions certified, however, embraces all the facts necessary to support such an order and there is no question certified which can be answered Yes or No, and which would determine the appeal.

The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.

His cock, Ch. J., Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Cardozo, J., not voting.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon all the facts set out in the record on appeal we think the court had jurisdiction to determine that the respondent Abigail Hancock Bishop was a proper party defendant and to bring her into the action.

None of the questions certified, however, embraces all the facts necessary to support such an order and there is no question certified which can be answered Yes or No, and which would determine the appeal.

The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.

His cock, Ch. J., Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Cardozo, J., not voting.

Appeal dismissed.

Metropolitan Tr. Co. of the City of New York v. . Bishop, 143 N.E. 762, 237 N.Y. 607, 1924 N.Y. LEXIS 911 (N.Y. 1924).

Pincite

143 N.E. 762 (Metropolitan Tr. Co. of the City of New York v. . Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.