From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Keeffe v. Dugan

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 21, 1919
225 N.Y. 667 (N.Y. 1919)

Summary

In O'Keeffe v. Dugan (supra), an action to restrain a town clerk from submitting to the electors at the town meeting the question of local option, it appeared that signatures of electors signing the petition were proved by subscribing witnesses, although section 13 of the Liquor Tax Law required that the petition should be signed and acknowledged by the electors before a notary public.

Summary of this case from Maul v. Maul

Opinion

Argued January 6, 1919

Decided January 21, 1919

Percy L. Housel for appellant.

Harry D. Sanders and Robert P. Griffing for respondents.


Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN and ANDREWS, JJ. Not voting: HOGAN, J.


Summaries of

O'Keeffe v. Dugan

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 21, 1919
225 N.Y. 667 (N.Y. 1919)

In O'Keeffe v. Dugan (supra), an action to restrain a town clerk from submitting to the electors at the town meeting the question of local option, it appeared that signatures of electors signing the petition were proved by subscribing witnesses, although section 13 of the Liquor Tax Law required that the petition should be signed and acknowledged by the electors before a notary public.

Summary of this case from Maul v. Maul
Case details for

O'Keeffe v. Dugan

Case Details

Full title:MARY C. O'KEEFFE, Appellant, v . J. FRED DUGAN, as Acting Town Clerk of…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 21, 1919

Citations

225 N.Y. 667 (N.Y. 1919)
122 N.E. 887

Citing Cases

STATE EX REL. GRAN v. BRATSBERG

In our opinion the requirement of § 3838 that a petition must show the ages of the petitioners and the length…

Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding

The syllogism thus expressed, crowned with the conclusion that a corporation is not a "person" subject to…