This ease differs from In re Barney, ante, 401, (heard at the present term,) chiefly in the fact that no testimony has ever been taken in the proceedings, and that no order has ever been made purporting to vacate-the assessment. The conclusions reached in that matter, however, apply equally to this, and require an affirmance of the order appealed from. All concur.
6 N.Y.S. 957
In re Weil.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
July 9, 1889.)
Appeal from special-term, Hew York county.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Macomber and Bartlett, JJ.
Charles E. Miller, for appellants. George L. Sterliitg, for respondents.
In re Weil
6 N.Y.S. 957
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!