New York Supreme Court, 1902

Cullinan v. Kuch

New York Supreme Court · Decided December 26, 1902 · Keener

3 Liquor Tax Rep. 56

Counsel

William E. Schenclc, for plaintiff., K acial tC- Carr ere, for defendant., Page & Eekley, for defendant Kucli.

Opinion of the Court

Keener, J.:

The contention that the bond is void because of a non-compliance with the Liquor Tax Law is not well taken. (Lyman v. Brucker, 26 Misc. 594; 42 App. Div. 624.) The plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the verdict.

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