Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People ex rel. Elmira Advertiser Ass'n v. Gorman 222 N.Y. 712

← Cases

People ex rel. Elmira Advertiser Ass'n v. Gorman

222 N.Y. 712 Court N.Y. Decision date 1918-02-15 English

Contents

Majority

p. 712
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Elmira Advertiser Association, Appellant, v. Frank J. Gorman, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chemung, et al., Respondents.

Headnote

Appeal — denial, in exercise of discretion, of application for alternative writ of mandamus not reviewable by Court of Appeals.
Where the Special Term in the exercise of its discretion denies an application for an alternative writ of mandamus and the Appellate Division also in the exercise of discretion affirms the order denying the application, the order of affirmance is not the object of review in this court. (People ex rel. Flynn v. Woods, 218 N. Y. 124 , followed.)
People ex rel. Elmira Advertiser Assn. v. Gorman, 169 App. Div. 891 , appeal dismissed.
(Argued February 5, 1918;
decided February 15, 1918.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered December 20, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an alternative writ of mandamus, directed to the respondents, Republican members of the board of supervisors of the county of Chemung, requiring them to perform their official duty in designating a Republican newspaper published in that county, in which to publish the Session Laws, etc., as required by sections 20 and 22 of the County Law.
James O. Sebring for appellant.
Richard H. Thurston, H. L. Gardner and H. H. Rockwell for respondents.

The application of relator for an alternative writ of mandamus having come on to be heard as a contested motion (Code Civ. Pro. § 2067, as amended by L. 1913, ch. 574), the Special Term in the exercise of its discretion denied the application. The Appellate Division, on appeal (Code Civ. Pro. § 2087, as amended by L. 1913, ch. 574), also in the exercise of discretion, affirmed the order denying, the application. The order

p. 713
appealed from is not the object of review in this court. (People ex rel. Flynn v. Woods, 218 N. Y. 124 -127.) The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cases cited