Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.

173 A.D. 927

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 187 A.D. 158 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1916·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Within the rule laid down in Washington Virginia R. Co. v. Real Estate Trust Co. (388 U. S. 185), this company was doing business within the State of New York for the purpose of service within that State. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Davis, JJ. Clarke, P. J., and Davis, J., dissented, on the authority of Bagdon v. Philadelphia & Beading Coal & Iron Co. (317 N. Y. 433). 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:

Within the rule laid down in Washington Virginia R. Co. v. Real Estate Trust Co. (388 U. S. 185), this company was doing business within the State of New York for the purpose of service within that State. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Davis, JJ. Clarke, P. J., and Davis, J., dissented, on the authority of Bagdon v. Philadelphia & Beading Coal & Iron Co. (317 N. Y. 433). Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railway Co., 173 A.D. 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

173 A.D. 927 (Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.