Legal Opinion

In re O'Keefe

New York City Court

Decided June 28, 1892PublishedCited by 2 opinions

. Appeal from special term. Application of Owen O’Keefe and another for a mandamus to John P. Adams, commissioner of city works of Brooklyn. Writ denied, and applicants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtClement, C. J.

The appellants contracted with an owner to excavate a cellar, and to cart away the dirt. The respondent contends that by reason,of *677section 12, art. 6, c. 3, of the ordinances of this city, they must obtain from him a permit to cross the sidewalk, and deposit the sum of $50. The ordinance reads as follows, (the original ordinance, before amendment, is in italics, and was passed in 1857:) “Section 12. No person shall drive, back, or lead any horse or cart or wheel carriage on the footpath or sidewalk of any street or avenue. The commissioner of city works may, however, grant permits to cross…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Duryee v. . Mayor, Etc., of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Miles v. ChamberlainWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
  3. City of Utica v. Blakeslee, New York County Courts1873

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brownlow v. O'Donoghue Bros., Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1921
  2. Bush v. Greyhound Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API