Pettengill v. Bee Line, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pettengill v. Bee Line, Inc.

238 A.D. 796

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 796 (Pettengill v. Bee Line, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pettengill v. Bee Line, Inc., 238 A.D. 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting a preference reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for a preference on the ground of destitution denied, without costs. The plaintiff is residing with his wife, who is earning $3,390 a year as a school teacher, while the plaintiff receives a war pension of thirty dollars a month. Plaintiff and his wife reside in a two-family house owned by the wife and from which she receives an income of about forty dollars a month from the tenant as rental of a part thereof. He is not a public charge and it is far from likely that he will become one. In our opinion the granting of plaintiff’s motion by the Special Term was not a proper exercise of discretion and the order under review was improvidently made. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting a preference reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for a preference on the ground of destitution denied, without costs. The plaintiff is residing with his wife, who is earning $3,390 a year as a school teacher, while the plaintiff receives a war pension of thirty dollars a month. Plaintiff and his wife reside in a two-family house owned by the wife and from which she receives an income of about forty dollars a month from the tenant as rental of a part thereof. He is not a public charge and it is far from likely that he will become one. In our opinion the granting of plaintiff’s motion by the Special Term was not a proper exercise of discretion and the order under review was improvidently made. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettengill-v-bee-line-inc-nyappdiv-1933.