Judson v. Flushing Jockey Club
New York Court of Common Pleas
Action by Henry C. Judson against the Flushing Jockey Club to recover a sweepstake won on a horse race. A judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of defendant, on the ground that Laws 1895, c. 570 (Percy-Gray Racing Act), under which the action ivas brought, was unconstitutional. On appeal to the general term, the two judges before whom the case was argued differed in their views, and each wrote an opinion.
Read the full summary
Action by Henry C. Judson against the Flushing Jockey Club to recover a sweepstake won on a horse race. A judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of defendant, on the ground that Laws 1895, c. 570 (Percy-Gray Racing Act), under which the action ivas brought, was unconstitutional. On appeal to the general term, the two judges before whom the case was argued differed in their views, and each wrote an opinion. A reargument was then ordered, because of the failure of concurrence. Afterwards it was suggested that the litigation was fictitious. Reference ordered as to character of…
1Per curiam
When, on the call of the calendar, counsel for the ostensible parties to the cause answered “Ready,” gentlemen of the bar,- on behalf of interests not apparent upon the record, but involved in the decision, interposed an objection to the argument of the appeal, upon the allegation that the action is a fictitious litigation, contrived and presented to procure an adjudication of a question not actually in controversy between real contestants, but framed and propounded by a person who, in fact, is at once plaintiff and defendant, and the issue which, according to the statement, is so sought to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- California v. San Pablo & Tulare RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Lord v. VeazieSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Wood-Paper Company v. HeftSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Anway v. Grand Rapids Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Halloran v. BLUE AND WHITE LIBERTY CAB CO. INC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Wedekind v. BellNevada Supreme Court · 1902
- Morrow v. MorrowNevada Supreme Court · 1945
- In re VAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.