Legal Opinion
Peo. Ex Rel. N.Y. H.R.R. Co. v. . Bd. of Taxes
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 8, 1901PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
A common-law mandamus is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and when it appears that the facts are such as to justify the court in refusing mandamus as matter of discretion, this court will not attempt to review its action unless it affirmatively appears in the order denying the writ that the court did not refuse the application in the exercise of discretion. (People ex rel. D.L.I. Co. v. Jeroloman, 139 N.Y. 14;People ex rel. Jacobus v. Van Wyck, 157 N.Y. 495; Peopleex rel. Steinson v. Bd. of Education, 158 N.Y. 125; People exrel. Rice v. Moss, 161 N.Y. 623.)
In this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Jacobus v. . Van WyckNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- People Ex Rel. Durant Land Improvement Co. v. JerolomanNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- People Ex Rel. Steinson v. . Bd. of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- People Ex Rel. Rice v. . MossNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by5 opinions
- Earl Carroll Realty Corp. v. New York Edison Co.New York Supreme Court · 1931
- People Ex Rel. Lentilhon v. . ColerNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People Ex Rel. Ellis-Joslyn Publishing Co. v. Common CouncilNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Mid-Town Tennis Club of Rochester v. City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- People ex rel. Bliss v. FeitnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902