New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Mills
157 A.D. 932, 142 N.Y.S. 1132
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1913·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Without any expression or intimation of opinion upon the merits of the controversy, we affirm the exercise of discretion by the Special Term in sending back the report to the commissioners by affirmance of the order, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (See Matter of Board of Water Commissioners, 55 App. Div. 77; Matter of Prospect Park & C. I. R. R. Co., 85 N. Y. 489.) Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Mills, 157 A.D. 932, 142 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).
157 A.D. 932 (New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re the Chittenango-Cazenovia, Part 1, Highway
130 Misc. 516 (New York County Courts, 1927)