Lyman v. . Kurtz
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered February 23, 1900, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, which affirmed an order of the Trial Term denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered February 23, 1900, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, which affirmed an order of the Trial Term denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The complaint does not set forth a cause of action, and error was committed in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss it upon that ground. (Nat. M. B. Assn. v. Colliding, 90 N. Y. 116; Ward v. Stahl, 81 N. Y. 406; People v. Pennock, 60 N. Y. 421; Page…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
This action was brought by the state commissioner of excise to recover the penalty of a bond; which was executed to the People of the state by the defendant Kurtz, as principal, and by the defendant trust company, as surety. It was given upon the former’s application for a liquor tax certificate and was required by the State Liquor Tax Law, in order that the applicant might be authorized to traffic in liquors. (Chap. 312, Laws of 1897, §§ 17, 18.) The recital following the bond, which is in the penal sum of $1,000, states that the principal is about to apply for a liquor tax certificate for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kolshorn v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- State v. GrimesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. CorronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Foley v. WhelanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Allen v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- In re CullinanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Matter of Konopka v. BruckmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.