People v. Scrugham
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a decision made at a special term, granting a peremptory mandamus. For a- report of the case below, see 20 Barbour, 302, where the facts are fully stated.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Birdseye, J.
The counsel for the defendant contends that this proceeding is merely to try the validity of *217the commission issued to the defendant, as brigadier general of the seventh brigade ; and that we as a civil court, have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any such matter; and that, even if we have such jurisdiction, we cannot, and if we can, we ought not to exercise it, by the writ of mandamus.
At a first view it would seem that we must decide upon the defendant’s title to his office, before we can dispose of this case. And that was done by the judgment of the special term.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Leo v. . HillNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- People ex rel. Gillett v. DeLamaterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- People ex rel. Smith v. RoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- People ex rel. Leo v. HillNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Pastore v. LivingstonCity of New York Municipal Court · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.