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 Charles Whann and Frederick S. Schlesinger, Appellants, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Bird S. Coler, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 535 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of Charles Whann and Frederick S. Schlesinger, Appellants, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Bird S. Coler, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent
159 N.Y. 535·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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 Charles Whann and Frederick S. Schlesinger, Appellants, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Bird S. Coler, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent.
Matter of Whann, 38 App. Div. 339, affirmed.
(Argued April 18, 1899;
decided May 12, 1899.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 27,1899, affirming an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the comptroller of the city of New York to issue to. the petitioners registered stock of the city of New York to the amount of $35,000 in lieu of a like amount of bonds issued previous to consolidation with the city of New York by the former village of Richmond Hill, conditioned in such form as said village bonds would have been conditioned if originally issued in registered form.
J. H. Caldwell for appellants.
John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (Theodore ConnoT/y and George L. Sterling of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.