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 Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Herman A. Metz, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, 1907 — 189 N.Y. 549 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of the Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Herman A. Metz, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents
189 N.Y. 549·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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 Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Herman A. Metz, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
Matter of Consolidated Tel. & El. Subway Co., 119 App. Div. 835, affirmed.
(Argued October 2, 1907;
decided October 22, 1907.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 10, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to note upon the tax books of the city of New York the payment in full of the special franchise tax assessed against the petitioner for the year 1900 and to execute and deliver to it a receipt therefor.
Henry J. Hemmens for appellant.
Francis E. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (George 8. Coleman of counsel), for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.
Concur : Cullen, Oh. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.