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.
General
In the Matter of the Application of Edward F. Brush, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus against The Board of Inspectors of Election of the First Election District of the Second Ward of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondents
171 N.Y. 696·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 Writ of Mandamus against The Board of Inspectors of Election of the First Election District of the Second Ward of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondents.
Matter of Brush, 74 App. Div. —, affirmed.
(Argued June 23, 1902;
decided June 27, 1902.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered J line 13, 1902, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the recanvass of votes cast for the office of mayor in the first election district of the second ward of the city of Mount Vernon. ■
Roger M. Sherman for appellant.
William N. Dykman, William A. Ferguson and Charles W. Sinnott for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.