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.
In the Matter of the Application of The American Fine Arts Society, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Directed to Edward P. Barker et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments in the City and County of New York, Respondents, 1896 — 151 N.Y. 621 · caselaw · US
Tax
In the Matter of the Application of The American Fine Arts Society, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Directed to Edward P. Barker et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments in the City and County of New York, Respondents
151 N.Y. 621·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
In the Matter of the Application of The American Fine Arts Society, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Directed to Edward P. Barker et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments in the City and County of New York, Respondents.
Matter of American Pine Arts Society, 6 App. Div. 496, affirmed.
(Argued October 19, 1896;
decided December 1, 1896.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 29, 1896, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying an application for a writ of peremptory mandamus directing the cancellation of a tax upon relator’s real estate.
Julien T. Davies, Charles Francis Stone and Herbert Barry for appellant.
Francis M. Scott and James M. Ward for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
All concur.