New York Supreme Court, 1893

McBride v. Murray

McBride v. Murray
New York Supreme Court · Decided October 13, 1893 · Tee
25 N.Y.S. 431; 72 Hun 394; 79 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 394; 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 487 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Hoyt & Rubens, for appellant., C. J. G-. Hall, for respondent.

McBride v. Murray

Opinion of the Court

TEE CURIAM.

• It is undoubtedly true that a mandamus Will lie to compel an inferior tribunal to decide an action or proceeding pending before it; but where the court or judge or justice disposes of the proceeding by decision, even though such decision he manifestly erroneous, it cannot be reviewed upon mandamus. Cases cited in Fiero, Spec. Proc. p. 56. In the case at bar the justice determined that he had not jurisdiction, and that disposed of the -action or proceeding pending before him. Whether he had jurisdiction or not must be reviewed in the ordinary way. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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