TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Martin v. W.J. Johnston Company

In the Matter of the Application of Thomas Commerford Martin, Respondent, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. the W. J. Johnston Company (Limited), Appellant

Martin v. W.J. Johnston Co., 27 N.E. 1017 (N.Y. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 23, 1891
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
27 N.E. 1017128 N.Y. 6051891 N.Y. LEXIS 1043
Headnotes
Upon the granting of a peremptory writ of mandamus, with costs,, air application for a stay pending appeal having been denied, defendant complied with the writ, paid the costs and appealed to the General Term, where the appeal was dismissed, the court holding that it was. not a practical question, the terms of the writ having been complied, with. Held, error; that the case should have been heard on the merits, as defendant would be entitled lo a restoration of the costs paid, in case the order were reversed.
Summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 5, 1891, which dismissed an appeal from an order of Special Term granting an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus. The following is the mem. of opinion : “The Special Term granted the writ, with costs. The defendant asked for a stay pending an appeal, which was denied. It then complied with the writ, and paid the costs, and appealed to the General Term. That court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not a practical question, as the terms of the writ of mandamus had been complied with. “ The court should have heard the case on the merits, because there was a question of costs which defendant had paid and which it would be entitled to have restored to it in case the order were reversed. “ Order of General Term reversed and case remitted to that court with directions to hear the appeal upon the merits, with costs of this court upon this .appeal to appellant to abide the event of the appeal to the General Term.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam mem.

for reversal.

All concur.

'Order reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1900: 11901: 11918: 11922: 11956: 11989: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Whittaker v. City of Deadwood82 N.W. 202 (S.D. 1900)
  2. Styles v. Waters94 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. 1956)
  3. CUMMINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Shukert436 N.W.2d 199 (Neb. 1989)
  4. Page v. Polk281 F. 74 (1st Cir. 1922)
  5. State ex rel. Wiles v. Albright88 N.W. 729 (N.D. 1901)
  6. In re French181 A.D. 719 (1918)

Most recent

  1. CUMMINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Shukert436 N.W.2d 199 (Neb. 1989)
  2. Styles v. Waters94 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. 1956)
  3. Page v. Polk281 F. 74 (1st Cir. 1922)
  4. In re French181 A.D. 719 (1918)
  5. State ex rel. Wiles v. Albright88 N.W. 729 (N.D. 1901)
  6. Whittaker v. City of Deadwood82 N.W. 202 (S.D. 1900)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list