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.
The People ex rel. Edison Electric Light Company, Appellant, v. Frank Campbell, Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent, 1896 — 148 N.Y. 759 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The People ex rel. Edison Electric Light Company, Appellant, v. Frank Campbell, Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent
148 N.Y. 759·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
The People ex rel. Edison Electric Light Company, Appellant, v. Frank Campbell, Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.
People ex rel. E. El. L. Co. v. Campbell (88 Hun, 530), reversed.
(Argued March 2, 1896;
decided March 10, 1896.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, made on the first Tuesday of May, 1895, which affirmed on certiorari a determination of the state comptroller imposing certain taxes upon the relator for the years 1886, 1887 and 1888.
The following is the memorandum in full:
“ The findings of the comptroller against the relator, with respect to the claim that, during the years for which the tax in question was imposed, the relator was engaged in manufacturing, and was a manufacturing corporation within the meaning of the statute then in force, is conclusive.
“ The remaining question relates to the manner of computing the tax upon capital employed in this state. That question has been disposed of upon another appeal by the same relator involving the same point (ante, p. 690) upon views which require a re-adjustment of the tax, and the order should, therefore, be reversed and the proceedings remitted to the Supreme Court for further action, without costs to either party.”
Eugene H. Lewis for appellant.
T. E. Hancock, Attorney-General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — O’Brien, J.]
O’Brien, J.
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Order reversed, and relator’s account remitted to the Supreme Court for purposes stated in memorandum, without costs to either party.