Ludington v. Dudley
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BISCHOFF, J.
The facts in this case, as admitted by stipulation, present the identical question which was decided by this court in the case of Irving v. Britton, 8 Misc. Rep. 201 , 28 N. Y. Supp. 529 , upon which authority this appeal is to be determined. But apart from the adjudication upon the constitutionality of the Ives pool law (chapter 479, Laws 1887), as presented by the prevailing opinion in that case, the defense in this action must fail upon the ground taken in the concurring opinion handed down therewith ( 8 Misc. Rep. 206 , 28 N. Y. Supp. 529 ). Hence, the determination of the supreme court in the case of Reilly v. Gray, 77 Hun, 402 , 28 N. Y. Supp. 811 , wherein contrary views as to the constitutionality of the act were expressed, even if it could here be observed with propriety by this general term, is not available as a support to appellant’s contention, for we should be content to rest our decision upon the express ground taken in the concurring opinion in Irving v. Britton, above referred to. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.