Mori v. Pearsall

14 Misc. 251, 35 N.Y.S. 829, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 250
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 14 Misc. 251 (Mori v. Pearsall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mori v. Pearsall, 14 Misc. 251, 35 N.Y.S. 829, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 250 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

Although the order from which this appeal is taken was signed by me, it is, however, an appeal from a decision rendered by Justice Fitzsimons.

The signing of the order by me was merely proforma and unnecessary, and, therefore, does not disqualify me "from hearing and determining'this appeal.

This order must be reversed on the opinion of Newburger, J., in Groff, as Assignee, v. Hagan, 13 Misc. Rep. 322.

Order is, therefore, reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion is denied, with leave to renew on proper papers.

Van Wyck, Ch. J., concurs.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with leaye to renew.

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

Related

Groff v. Hagan
13 Misc. 322 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Misc. 251, 35 N.Y.S. 829, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mori-v-pearsall-nynyccityct-1895.