TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Department of Buildings v. Field

Department of Buildings of the City of New York v. Richard Field

Dep't of Buildings v. Field, 9 A.D. 500 (1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 1, 1896
Judges
Patterson
Citations
9 A.D. 500
Headnotes
Submission of a controversy affecting real propes'ty — defective statement as to ownership. • The statement upon which a controversy relative to certain premises was submitted recited that one Gerry was the present owner of the premises mentioned therein, and that the defendant, Richard Field, became the owner of the premises in.their existing condition. Held, that the statement did not show that the defendant Field was the owner of the premises, and that the proceeding was taken against the owner, and that the court for that reason would not consider the matter.
Summary
Submission of a controversy upon an agreed .statement of facts pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

Opinion of the Court — Patterson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Patterson, J.

In the condition of the agreed statement of facts as it is presented to us, this matter cannot be considered. It is specifically stated that Mr. Elbridge T. .Gerry is the present owner of the premises mentioned in- the submission. All that is stated with reference to the defendant Field, is, that he became the owner of the property in its' existing condition; but that does not show that he is the owner of the property and that the proceeding is taken against the owner. As we are not authorized to draw any inferences or to import anything into the submission, we cannot act on these papers, but the matter may be resubmitted on a proper statement.

Van Brunt, P. . J., Barrett, Rdmsey and Williams, ■ JJ., concurred.

Leave given to parties, if they shall be so advised, to file additional statement.

How later courts describe this case

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

1899: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Herkimer County Light & Power Co. v. Johnson37 A.D. 257 (1899) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Herkimer County Light & Power Co. v. Johnson37 A.D. 257 (1899) · Dissent

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