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.
Joseph B. Pearce, Jr., Appellant, v. Stephen D. Stephens, as County Judge, et al., Respondents, 1897 — 153 N.Y. 673 · caselaw · US
General
Joseph B. Pearce, Jr., Appellant, v. Stephen D. Stephens, as County Judge, et al., Respondents
153 N.Y. 673·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
Joseph B. Pearce, Jr., Appellant, v. Stephen D. Stephens, as County Judge, et al., Respondents.
Pearce v. Stephens, 18 App. Div. 101, affirmed.
(Argued June 22, 1897;
decided June 25, 1897.)
Appeal, by certification, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department made May 18, 1897, which reversed an order of Special Term granting an injunction.
The questions certified by the Appellate Division were:
Fi/rst. Is the designation by chapter 108 of the Laws of 1897, of the sheriff of the county of Richmond, as a member of the board of appointment, therein created, constitutional ?
Second. Is the provision in said act, that the police comissioners of Richmond county, to be appointed by said board of appointment, are not to belong to the same political party, or be of the same political opinion on state and national politics, constitutional ?
Third. If such designation shall be unconstitutional, does it render the act itself unconstitutional ?
George W. Wingate and Thomas W. Fitzgerald for appellant.
George M. Pinney, Jr., and Aaron G. Thayer for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs, and the first and second questions answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
All concur, except Gray, L, absent.