Matter of Stevenson

3 Citing cases

  1. In re New Jersey State Bar Assn

    162 A. 99 (N.J. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    These questions are to be answered in the affirmative. The hearing on this order has shown a perfect mine of wealth of legal principles, to the effect that the court has jurisdiction, that the money being in court is subject to its control and subject to the appropriation of the court for lawful purposes (see Matter of Stevenson, (N.Y.) 137 App. Div. 789) or the protection of the court and it self-preservation. The attorney-general himself claimed in his argument and brief that the legislature's refusal to appropriate any funds of the state for the expenses of the investigation was a conclusive determination of the non-existence of any necessity or emergency justifying the expenditure of the public funds.

  2. Matter of Germaine

    244 A.D. 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

    Under a somewhat similar statute which directed that funds which had been paid into court and there remained for a period of twenty years, be paid over to the Treasurer of the State, it was pointed out that the State was not thereby asserting title to such moneys, but was providing only for the custody thereof. (See People v. Keenan, 110 App. Div. 537; State Finance Law, ยง 44; Matter of Stevenson, 137 App. Div. 789; Matter of People v. Maltbie, 102 Misc. 575.) But the fact that the State is not asserting title is not sufficient to enable appellants to obtain the fund.

  3. In re N.J. State Bar Ass'n

    162 A. 99 (Ch. Div. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    The hearing on this order has shown a perfect mine of wealth of legal principles, to the effect that the Court has jurisdiction, that the money being in Court is subject to its control and subject to the appropriation of the Court for lawful purposes (See Matter of Stevenson, 137 App. Div. N. Y. 780, 122 N. Y. S. 664) or the protection of the Court and its self preservation. The Attorney General himself claimed in his argument and brief that the Legislature's refusal to appropriate any funds of the State for the expenses of the investigation was a conclusive determination of the non-existence of any necessity or emergency justifying the expenditure of the public funds.