General
In the Matter of the Application of The O. J. Gude Company, N. Y., Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Edward S. Murphy, as Superintendent of Buildings of the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Respondent
129 A.D. 266·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1908·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 O. J. Gude Company, N. Y., Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Edward S. Murphy, as Superintendent of Buildings of the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Respondent.
First Department,
December 18, 1908.
See head note in Peopleexrel. Wineburgh Advertising Co. v. Murphy (ante, p. 260).
Appeal by the petitioner, The O. J. Gude Company, N. Y., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 6th day of July, 1908, denying the petitioner’s motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus.
Julius M. Mayer, for the appellant.
Clarence L. Barber, for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Scott, J.:]
Scott, J.:
For the reasons stated in People ex rel. Wineburgh Advertising Co. v. Murphy (129 App. Div. 260), decided herewith, the order appealed from must be reversed and the motion for a peremptory mandamus granted.
Patterson, P. J., and Ingraham, J., concurred; Laughlin, J., concurred for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., No. 4 (124 App. Div. 641); Clarke, J., dissented.
Order reversed, and motion for peremptory mandamus granted. Settle order on notice.