New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891

McVity v. Stanton

New York Court of Common Pleas · Decided April 6, 1891

13 N.Y.S. 914; 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1735 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Dill, Chandler & Seymour, (James B. Dill, of counsel,) for appellant. Abbott Bros., (William A. Abbott, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Upon careful consideration of the opinions in Preston v. Hencken, 9 Abb. N. C. 68, and in Williams v. Folsom,, 3 N. Y. Supp. 681, 5 N. Y Supp. 211, we are clear that the reasoning of the learned chief judge in the decision appealed from proceeds upon the more solid grounds, and conducts to the more consistent and satisfactory conclusion. Accordingly the order is-affirmed on the opinion at special term. Order affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.