New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. v. Griffin

201 A.D. 733, 195 N.Y.S. 112, 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D. 733 (New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. v. Griffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. v. Griffin, 201 A.D. 733, 195 N.Y.S. 112, 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:

We are of opinion that the action of the common council of the city of Middletown was irregular in that the notice prescribed [734]*734by the statute was not given. Section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law

* provides in effect that unless the operators of the bus line shall obtain the consent of the municipal authorities, they are not competent to receive a certificate of convenience and necessity. We do not doubt that the Public Service Commission had power to grant such certificate, but as defendant had no power to receive it, as to him the situation is the same as if the certificate had never been issued. The village of Liberty having been brought under the operation of section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law, no consent has been obtained by defendant for the operation of the bus line in said village. The injunction order is limited to the operation of the bus line in the city of Middletown and the village of Liberty. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Blackmar, P. J., Rich, Jay cox and Young, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., dissents and reads for reversal.

Added by Laws of 1915, chap. 667, as amd. by Laws of 1919, chap. 307.—[Rep.

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

Per Curiam:

We are of opinion that the action of the common council of the city of Middletown was irregular in that the notice prescribed [734]*734by the statute was not given. Section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law

* provides in effect that unless the operators of the bus line shall obtain the consent of the municipal authorities, they are not competent to receive a certificate of convenience and necessity. We do not doubt that the Public Service Commission had power to grant such certificate, but as defendant had no power to receive it, as to him the situation is the same as if the certificate had never been issued. The village of Liberty having been brought under the operation of section 26 of the Transportation Corporations Law, no consent has been obtained by defendant for the operation of the bus line in said village. The injunction order is limited to the operation of the bus line in the city of Middletown and the village of Liberty. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Blackmar, P. J., Rich, Jay cox and Young, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., dissents and reads for reversal.

Added by Laws of 1915, chap. 667, as amd. by Laws of 1919, chap. 307.—[Rep.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D. 733, 195 N.Y.S. 112, 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-ontario-western-railway-co-v-griffin-nyappdiv-1922.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack