Tuma v. Piepenbrink
New York Supreme Court
Demurrers to complaint upon these grounds: First, •that plaintiffs have not legal capacity to sue. Second, that complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Third, that there is a defect of parties defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtJaycox, J.
The defendants demur to the complaint upon three grounds: First, that the plaintiffs have not legal capacity to sue. Second, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Third, that there is a defect of parties defendant in omitting the town of Islip, the owner of the lands.
The second and third grounds of demurrer have been passed upon in the companion actions of Bachia v. the same defendants which are decided herewith. (Post, page 362.)
The office which the plaintiffs hold was created by chapter 503 of the Laws of 1857. By said law it was provided that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. A. Oakey Hall v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Town of Hempstead v. LawrenceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Acme Road MacHinery Co. v. Town of BridgewaterNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Town of Pelham v. ShinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Miller v. BushNew York Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by4 opinions
- Salmon v. Rochester & Lake Ontario Water Co.New York Supreme Court · 1923
- Tuma v. PiepenbrinkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Saile v. EdellNew York Supreme Court · 1916
- Town of Islip v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920