Holmes v. Crane
Holmes v. Crane
176 A.D. 914
Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, with ten dolr Jars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.; Smith, J., dissented on the ground that the statute
See Code Civ. Proc. § 1836a, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 631.— [Rep,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.