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 Edward H. Dederick for a Writ of Mandamus, 1879 — 77 N.Y. 595 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of Edward H. Dederick for a Writ of Mandamus
77 N.Y. 595·New York Court of Appeals·1879·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 Edward H. Dederick for a Writ of Mandamus.
(Argued April 1, 1879 ;
decided April 8, 1879.)
This was appeal from an order of General Term affirming an order of Special Term denying an application for a writ of mandamus to compel Emmons Clark, colonel of the Seventh Regiment, >N. G. S. N. Y., to countermand an order discharging the petitioner from said regiment. Petitioner was a private and was discharged after serving within about a month of his term of enlistment (seven years) upon a certificate of the regimental surgeon that he was physically disabled. The certificate was in due form as prescribed by statute (§ 3, chap. 29, Laws of 1876; § 253, chap. 80, Laws of 1870). Held, that the granting or refusal of the writ was in the discretion of the court of original jurisdiction ; that it did not appear that the discretion had been abused, and that therefore this court would' not interfere to review the proceedings.
Charles E. Lydecker for appellant.
Emmons Clark respondent in person.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
inion for dismissal of appeal
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.