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 Edward F. Brush, Appellant, for a Recount of the Ballots Cast for the Office of Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon. Edwin W. Fiske, Respondent, 1902 — 171 N.Y. 694 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of Edward F. Brush, Appellant, for a Recount of the Ballots Cast for the Office of Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon. Edwin W. Fiske, Respondent
171 N.Y. 694·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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 Edward F. Brush, Appellant, for a Recount of the Ballots Cast for the Office of Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon. Edwin W. Fiske, Respondent.
Matter of Brush, 73-App. Div. 630, affirmed.
(Argued June 12, 1902;
decided June 27, 1902.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, eritered May 31,1902, which modified, and affirmed as modified, an order of Special Term deciding the validity of certain ballots cast for the office of mayor of the city of Mount Yernon.
Roger M. Sherman for appellant.
William N. Dykman, William A. Ferguson and Charles W. Sinnott for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur : Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.