—This case is within the principle of Foley v. Mayor, etc., 1 App. Div. 586; 37 N. Y. Supp. 465, and should be affirmed on the authority of that case. In that case, as in this, the plaintiff had been examined under the authority of section 123 of the consolidation act; but the parol notice given at the time of that examination was not thought to be sufficient notice of the intention to sue, to permit a recovery. The same rule must he applied here. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
72 N.Y. St. Rptr. 865
Honora Bolster, App’lt, v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, Resp’t.
Sup. Ct., App. D., 1 D.,
April 24, 1896.
J. B. Hands, for app’lt ; T. Connoly, for resp’t.
Bolster v. Mayor
72 N.Y. St. Rptr. 865
Case Details
72 N.Y. St. Rptr. 865
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!