Suesskind v. Bingham
This text of 125 A.D. 787 (Suesskind v. Bingham) 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.
Opinions
It is quite impossible to see upon what ground the police could claim that these plaintiffs were violating any statute upon the facts here presented. The same question is presented, however, as in the case of Eden Musee American Co., Ltd., v. Bingham (125 App. Div. 780), decided herewith, and plaintiff’s remedy is not by injunction, but by an action at law against the individual officers, or an indictment, if their property or business is interfered with.
The order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an injunction denied, with ten dollars costs.
McLaughlin, Glabke and Scott, JJ., concurred; Laughlin, J. dissented.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
125 A.D. 787, 110 N.Y.S. 213, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suesskind-v-bingham-nyappdiv-1908.