Poillon v. Cudlipp

New York Supreme Court

Poillon v. Cudlipp

50 How. Pr. 366

DecidedFebruary 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 50 How. Pr. 366 (Poillon v. Cudlipp) 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

Poillon v. Cudlipp, 50 How. Pr. 366 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Tan Brunt, J.

— This is a motion for an extra allowance under section 309 of the Code. I do not see how the plaintiff brings himself within any of its provisions. The action is not one to foreclose a mortgage, but to* reach an award in. the hands of the comptroller made for the taking of the mortgaged premises for the widening of Broadway. It was not a difficult and extraordinary case as far as the plaintiff was concerned, because he was either entitled to a judgment for the interest in dispute against the defendants Oudlipp and Scott, or against the corporation of the city of New York. In fact the whole issue was between the defendants Oudlipp and Scott and the corporation, and in- such a case I have decided, in the case of Devlin agt. The Mayor, that no allowance can be granted.

There was no answer in the case by the corporation, and' no questions whatever were raised between the plaintiffs and the corporation.

Motion for extra allowance must be denied.

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

Tan Brunt, J.

— This is a motion for an extra allowance under section 309 of the Code. I do not see how the plaintiff brings himself within any of its provisions. The action is not one to foreclose a mortgage, but to* reach an award in. the hands of the comptroller made for the taking of the mortgaged premises for the widening of Broadway. It was not a difficult and extraordinary case as far as the plaintiff was concerned, because he was either entitled to a judgment for the interest in dispute against the defendants Oudlipp and Scott, or against the corporation of the city of New York. In fact the whole issue was between the defendants Oudlipp and Scott and the corporation, and in- such a case I have decided, in the case of Devlin agt. The Mayor, that no allowance can be granted.

There was no answer in the case by the corporation, and' no questions whatever were raised between the plaintiffs and the corporation.

Motion for extra allowance must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 How. Pr. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poillon-v-cudlipp-nysupct-1874.