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.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rochester Railway and Light Company, Appellant, v. Lester F. Stearns et al., Constituting the State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of the City of Rochester, Respondent, for Leave to Intervene, 1906 — 185 N.Y. 611 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rochester Railway and Light Company, Appellant, v. Lester F. Stearns et al., Constituting the State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of the City of Rochester, Respondent, for Leave to Intervene
185 N.Y. 611·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rochester Railway and Light Company, Appellant, v. Lester F. Stearns et al., Constituting the State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of the City of Rochester, Respondent, for Leave to Intervene.
People ex rel. Rochester Ry. & L. Co. v. Stearns, 112 App. Div. 906, affirmed.
(Argued June 6, 1906;
decided June 21, 1906.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered Marcli 19, 1906, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion of the respondent herein for leave to intervene as a party defendant in the above-entitled action.
The following question was certified: “ Has the Supreme Court power in this proceeding to allow the City of Rochester, upon its application, after the issuance of the writ of certiorari and service thereof upon the State Board of Tax Commissioners and after the service of a return thereto, to intervene as a party defendant herein ? ”
Julius M. Mayer, Attorney-Cenerad, and Daniel M. Beach for appellants.
William W. Wébb, Corporation Counsel (B. B. Cwrmingham of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Werner and Hiscock, JJ. Absent: Chase, J.