People ex rel. Goldstein v. Bolte

71 N.Y.S. 73
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 14, 1900·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

LEVENTRITT, J.

It is elementary that a mandamus will issue only where there is a clear, legal right without adequate legal remedy. People v. Railroad Co., 63 How. Prac. 291, 296; Clark v. Miller, 54 N. Y. 528, 534. By the long-approved practice of this court, the alleged wrongful refusal of a justice of the former district or the present municipal court to order removal of a cause to the old common [74]*74pleas or the present city court was adequately remedied by appeal. Hogan v. Devlin, 2 Daly, 184; People v. Fourth Dist. Ct., 13 Civ. Proc. R. 134; O’Connor v. Moschowitz, 48 How. Prac. 451; Warren v. Campbell (Com. Pl.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 165; People v. Roesch, 27 Misc. Rep. 44, 45, 57 N. Y. Supp. 295.

The motion for the writ must, therefore, be denied, with $10 costs.

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

People ex rel. Goldstein v. Bolte, 71 N.Y.S. 73 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

71 N.Y.S. 73 (People ex rel. Goldstein v. Bolte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. O'BRIEN v. Bolte
71 N.Y.S. 74 (New York Supreme Court, 1900)