O. J. Gude Co. v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O. J. Gude Co. v. Murphy

113 N.Y.S. 860

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 860 (O. J. Gude Co. v. Murphy) 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

O. J. Gude Co. v. Murphy, 113 N.Y.S. 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

For the reasons stated in People ex rel. M. Wineburgh Advertising Company v. Edward S. Murphy, as Superintendent of Buildings (decided herewith) 113 N. Y. Supp. 855, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the motion for a peremptory mandamus granted. Settle order on notice.

PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, J., concur. LAUGHLIN, J., concurs, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 124 App. Div. 641, 109 N. Y. Supp. 335. CLARKE, J., dissents.

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

SCOTT, J.

For the reasons stated in People ex rel. M. Wineburgh Advertising Company v. Edward S. Murphy, as Superintendent of Buildings (decided herewith) 113 N. Y. Supp. 855, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the motion for a peremptory mandamus granted. Settle order on notice.

PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, J., concur. LAUGHLIN, J., concurs, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 124 App. Div. 641, 109 N. Y. Supp. 335. CLARKE, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-j-gude-co-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack