Tax
Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant, v. James E. Smith, Respondent; Same, Appellant, v. Carroll Phippany, Respondent
101 N.Y. 684·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY
All concur.
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
Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant, v. James E. Smith, Respondent. Same, Appellant, v. Carroll Phippany, Respondent.
(Submitted March 2, 1886;
decided March 16, 1886.)
These were appeals from orders of General Term affirming orders of Special Term denying motions to continue temporary injunctions.
The actions were brought to restrain defendants, who were town collectors, from collecting certain taxes assessed upon the property of plaintiff, which it claimed to be invalid because of defects in the affidavits attached to the assessment-rolls.
Wm. B. Mornblower for appellant.
Edmund L. Pitts and John Qu/neen for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm without passing upon the validity of the original affidavits attached to the assessment-rolls.
All concur.
Orders affirmed.