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 Bartholomew Donovan, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Jacob J. Cantor, Individually and as President of the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, 1904 — 179 N.Y. 527 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of Bartholomew Donovan, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Jacob J. Cantor, Individually and as President of the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, et al., Respondents
179 N.Y. 527·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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 Bartholomew Donovan, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Jacob J. Cantor, Individually and as President of the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
Matter of Donovan v. Cantor, 89 App. Div. 50, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 2, 1904;
decided June 17, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 24,1903, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to appoint the relator to the position of superintendent of public baths in the city of New York and dismissed said writ.
Roger Foster for appellant.
John J. Delany, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Gonnoly and W. B. Crowell of counsel), for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker-, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Yann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.