People ex rel. Goldstein v. Bolte
This text of 71 N.Y.S. 73 (People ex rel. Goldstein v. Bolte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 N.Y.S. 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-goldstein-v-bolte-nysupct-1900.