People ex rel. Kilgallon v. Nuhn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Kilgallon v. Nuhn

173 A.D. 895

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1916·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We think that the disposition made by the Special Term was right. The opinion of Maddox, J., who presided in that court, renders any discussion by us unnecessary. The opinion as printed in the record and as published (92 Misc. Rep. 312) states that Browning, King & Co. v. Chamberlain (150 App. Div. 392) was affirmed in 210 New York, 270. This was probably a slip of the pen. That ease was reversed. (See 210 N. Y. 270, 274.) The order of the Special Term is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P .J., Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam:

We think that the disposition made by the Special Term was right. The opinion of Maddox, J., who presided in that court, renders any discussion by us unnecessary. The opinion as printed in the record and as published (92 Misc. Rep. 312) states that Browning, King & Co. v. Chamberlain (150 App. Div. 392) was affirmed in 210 New York, 270. This was probably a slip of the pen. That ease was reversed. (See 210 N. Y. 270, 274.) The order of the Special Term is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P .J., Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

People ex rel. Kilgallon v. Nuhn, 173 A.D. 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

173 A.D. 895 (People ex rel. Kilgallon v. Nuhn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related