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 Petition of John B. Tuthill et al., Appellants, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Drain Certain Lands in the Towns of Chester and Blooming Grove, in the County of Orange. John J. Hallihan et al., Respondents, 1900 — 161 N.Y. 664 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Petition of John B. Tuthill et al., Appellants, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Drain Certain Lands in the Towns of Chester and Blooming Grove, in the County of Orange. John J. Hallihan et al., Respondents
161 N.Y. 664·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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 Petition of John B. Tuthill et al., Appellants, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Drain Certain Lands in the Towns of Chester and Blooming Grove, in the County of Orange. John J. Hallihan et al., Respondents.
Reported below. 36 App. Div. 493;
(Submitted February 5, 1900;
decided February 13, 1900.)
Motion to prefer an appeal from a judgment and order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 30, 1899, reversing an order of the county judge-of Orange county confirming certain assessments and the judgments duly entered on such order, and vacating and setting aside the proceedings. ■
The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment of the Appellate Division declared a legislative enactment unconstitutional, and that the speedy hearing and determination of the appeal is of public importance.
T. V. Sanford for motion.
No one opposed.
[MAJORITY]
. Motion to prefer grantedl