Without any expression or intimation of opinion upon the merits of the controversy, we affirm the exercise of discretion hy the Special Term in sending back the report to the commissioners hy affirmance of the order, with $10 costs and disbursements. See Matter of Board of Water Commissioners, 55 App. Div. 77, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1005; Matter of Prospect Park & C. I, R. R. Co., 85 N. Y. 489.
142 N.Y.S. 1132
NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant, v. MILLS et al. Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 13, 1913.)
Action by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company against Abner B. Mills and others.
New York Cent. & H. R. R. v. Mills
142 N.Y.S. 1132
Case Details
142 N.Y.S. 1132
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!