Legal Opinion

New York Board of Fire Underwriters v. Metropolitan Lloyds

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Demtjbbeb to complaint.

1Opinion of the CourtBeekman, J.

Upon a careful examination of the questions raised by the demurrer in this case, I have come to the conclusion that I would not be justified in rejecting the complaint as insufficient, although it rests quite upon the border line. If the statute upon which the plaintiff relies for liis cause of action is a private act, it certainly has not been properly pleaded under-section 530 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the title of the act to be set forth as well as its chapter and year of passage where that form of pleading is resorted to. I am, however, inclined to the view that the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. President of the Bank of Utica v. SmedesNew York Supreme Court · 1824

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. New York Board of Fire Underwriters v. Whipple & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  2. Milwaukee Board of Fire Underwriters v. Badger Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  3. New York Board of Fire Underwriters v. Metropolitan LloydsNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  4. State v. ClementsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API