From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bandel v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 8, 1912
98 N.E. 1097 (N.Y. 1912)

Opinion

Argued February 21, 1912

Decided March 8, 1912

Edwin A. Jones and Albert Van Winkle for appellant.

Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel ( James D. Bell of counsel), for respondents.


Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER and COLLIN, JJ.; HISCOCK, J., concurs on the ground that plaintiff having been licensed to practice osteopathy under the provisions of section 14 of chapter 344 of the Laws of 1907, and not in accordance with the last clause of subdivision 6 of section 7 of said act and related provisions, is not in position to claim that the ordinance in question is arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminating. Concurs: VANN, J.


Summaries of

Bandel v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 8, 1912
98 N.E. 1097 (N.Y. 1912)
Case details for

Bandel v. the City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES F. BANDEL, Appellant, v . THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 8, 1912

Citations

98 N.E. 1097 (N.Y. 1912)
98 N.E. 1097

Citing Cases

Kurk v. Medical Society of County of Queens, Inc.

Thereafter and in September, 1960 he took and successfully passed the identical examination given by the New…