Scudder v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

96 A.D. 340, 89 N.Y.S. 1115

This text of 96 A.D. 340 (Scudder v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) 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
Scudder v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 96 A.D. 340, 89 N.Y.S. 1115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinions

Hatch, J.:

The question which I regarded as controlling the decision in . Topham v. Interurbam, St. R. Co. (96 App. Div. 323) is not presented by the present record. The lease made in this case shows it to have been subsequent to May 1, 1891, and it is not claimed that there were any other leases made of the Third Avenue railroad or the Metropolitan Street railway prior thereto ; consequently such question is not involved. Heither does the pleading nor the proof in this case raise the question of compliance with section 104 of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 105, renumbered § 104 and amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 676) by showing that suitable regulations were made for the issuance of transfers in the promotion of the public convenience, as is expressed in the Topham case.

It follows, therefore, that the determination of the Appellate Term should be affirmed, with costs.

Patterson and Laughlin, JJ., concurred; Van Brunt, P. J., and Ingraham, J., dissented.

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

Related

Topham v. Interurban Street Railway Co.
96 A.D. 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A.D. 340, 89 N.Y.S. 1115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scudder-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappdiv-1904.