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.
Belden Roach, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent, 1906 — 186 N.Y. 592 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Belden Roach, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent
186 N.Y. 592·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
Belden Roach, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Roach v. City of New York, 105 App. Div. 642, affirmed.
(Argued November 19, 1906;
decided December 4, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment entered July 24, 1905, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which affirmed an interlocutory
judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover money alleged to have been involuntarily paid for void and illegal taxes.
Alfred A. Wheat and Francis J)a\ia for appellant.
William B. Ellison, Corporation Counsel (George S. Coleman of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ. .