Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands for the Improvement of the Water Front on the North River Between Twentieth and Twenty-first Streets. In the Matter of the Taxation of the Disbursements Made by The General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, Respondent, 1905 — 181 N.Y. 510 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands for the Improvement of the Water Front on the North River Between Twentieth and Twenty-first Streets. In the Matter of the Taxation of the Disbursements Made by The General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, Respondent
181 N.Y. 510·New York Court of Appeals·1905·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands for the Improvement of the Water Front on the North River Between Twentieth and Twenty-first Streets. In the Matter of the Taxation of the Disbursements Made by The General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, Respondent.
Matter of City of New York, 99 App. Div. 624, appeal dismissed.
(Argued February 20, 1905;
decided March 7, 1905.)
Appeal from an order of the 'Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 14, 1904, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling in part exceptions of the appellant herein to the report of a referee taxing certain disbursements made by the respondent herein in the above-entitled proceeding.'
John J. Délcmy, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Charles D. Olendorf of counsel), for appellant.
William 11. Harris for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ.'