Opinion

Rorke v. Russell

  • 2 Lans. 242
Court
New York Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 15, 1869
Status
Published
Author
Sutherland
On the bench
Sutherland
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 88.7%

The opinion

Sutherland, J.

I question, whether the appeal by the defendant, Russell, ¡enables us regularly to review, the order appealed from. No fine was imposed on the defendant Russell.

But considering his appeal, as sufficient to authorize us to review the order, I am of the opinion, that it should be affirmed.

None of the members or officers of the board, except Russell, the president, and the plaintiff, may have been parties to the action, and that may have been, or may be a good reason, why the injunction should not have issued against the other officers and members of the board, or why it should, or might have been vacated on motion, by or in behalf of such other .officers or members, or any, or either of them; but this furnishes no excuse for the willful disregard of the injunction by the members fined, who were in part made parties to the injtmelion, and named in it, by the name or designation of “ officers and members of the New York Mining Stock Board.”

The order should be affirmed with costs.

Order affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.