People ex rel. Welling v. Meakim
This text of 24 Abb. N. Cas. 379 (People ex rel. Welling v. Meakim) 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
The uncontradicted testimony shows that, the commissioners have neglected their duty in not deciding this and other • cases brought before them. They say they have not taken unreasonable time to decide these cases, but the facts show that in this instance, upon the briefest testimony, they have taken over forty days. That was plain negligence, and it was subversive of the law, in that the dealer’s license had nearly expired. The denial of negligence is a denial of a mere conclusion. The fact of negligence plainly appears, and the writ should therefore issue with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 Abb. N. Cas. 379, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-welling-v-meakim-nysupct-1890.