People ex rel. New York & E. Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Plympton

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. New York & E. Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Plympton

32 N.Y.S. 1148, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 610, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 880

DecidedFebruary 11, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 1148 (People ex rel. New York & E. Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Plympton) 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.

Bluebook

People ex rel. New York & E. Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Plympton, 32 N.Y.S. 1148, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 610, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 880 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order which awarded to the relators a peremptory writ of mandamus, requiring the board of commissioners of electrical subways of the city of Brooklyn to approve a plan, and grant a permit to the New York & Eastern Telegraph & Telephone Company to erect and suspend telegraph and telephone wires from and along the Kings County Elevated Railway, and to place electrical conductors in subways to be constructed along certain streets in the city. Our examination satisfies us that the proper disposition was made of the case by the special term, and the reasons therefor are satisfactory. The order [1149]*1149should he affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order which awarded to the relators a peremptory writ of mandamus, requiring the board of commissioners of electrical subways of the city of Brooklyn to approve a plan, and grant a permit to the New York & Eastern Telegraph & Telephone Company to erect and suspend telegraph and telephone wires from and along the Kings County Elevated Railway, and to place electrical conductors in subways to be constructed along certain streets in the city. Our examination satisfies us that the proper disposition was made of the case by the special term, and the reasons therefor are satisfactory. The order [1149]*1149should he affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 1148, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 610, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-new-york-e-telegraph-telephone-co-v-plympton-nysupct-1895.