People ex rel. Cecere v. Slocum
Opinion of the Court
The respondents have filed no briefs on this appeal. The order appealed from purports to be a final order in a cer
By section 2123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a writ of certiorari can issue only out of the Supreme Court except “in a case where another court is expressly authorized by statute to issue it.” This writ of certiorari was provided for by subdivision 1 of section 27 of the Liquor Tax Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 34; Laws of 1909, chap. 39), but that statute provides that it “ may be issued by, returnable to, and heard by a county judge of the county, or a justice of the Supreme Court of the judicial district in which the premises are situated in which the applicant desires to carry on the business of trafficking in liquors.” So. we have here, apparently, a proceeding of which the County Court had no jurisdiction. This objection may be taken at any time, as is well settled.
The appellant cites, in support of his contention that the County Court as such had no jurisdiction of this matter, the following authorities, all of which are in point: Heishon v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. (77 N. Y. 278); Wiechers v. New Home Sewing Machine Co. (38 App. Div. 1), and Matter of Wright, Peters & Co. (73 id. 75). There are numerous other authorities pointing out the distinction between a statutory power given to a judge and that given to a court.
The order of the County Court of Dutchess county should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the writ of certiorari dismissed.
Jenks, P. J., Bubb, Thomas and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Order of the County Court of Dutchess county reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and writ of certiorari dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.