Legal Opinion

Bennett v. American Art Union

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided April 15, 1852PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The complaint alleged as follows:— That by an act of the legislature of the state of New York, passed at a session of the legislature held at Albany, in the state of New York, in the year 1840, entitled “ An Act to incorporate the Apollo Association, for the promotion of the fine arts,” it was enacted that John W. Francis, James Herring, John H. Gourlie, George Bruce, Augustus Guell, John P. Ridner, John P. Nesmith, Thomas N. Campbell, Prosper M. Wet-more, and such other…

Read the full summary

The complaint alleged as follows:— That by an act of the legislature of the state of New York, passed at a session of the legislature held at Albany, in the state of New York, in the year 1840, entitled “ An Act to incorporate the Apollo Association, for the promotion of the fine arts,” it was enacted that John W. Francis, James Herring, John H. Gourlie, George Bruce, Augustus Guell, John P. Ridner, John P. Nesmith, Thomas N. Campbell, Prosper M. Wet-more, and such other persons as then were, or might thereafter from time to time become, associated with them, were thereby constituted a body…

1Opinion of the CourtDuer, J.

I am satisfied, for reasons that I shall proceed to state, that the plaintiff, upon the face of his complaint, has no title to the relief which he seeks, and consequently, that the temporary injunction which has been granted must be dissolved, and the motion for a permanent injunction be denied.

It is true that the learned counsel for the defendants, in the full confidence that the proceedings of the Art Union have been in strict conformity to the constitution and laws of the state, and as such would b'e sustained by the judgment of the court, has expressed his willingness to waive all…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kerr v. ForceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1826
  2. The MarsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1812

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Oakland Railroad v. Oakland, Brooklyn, & Fruit Vale RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  2. State v. EmmertSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878

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

Powered by the Exa API