Case Name: BOHNET v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-07-31
Citations: 40 N.Y.S. 1140
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOHNET v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 40
Pages: 1140–1140

Head Matter:
BOHNET v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
July 31, 1896.)
'Application by Philip Bohnet for a peremptory 'writ of mandamus against the mayor, aldermen, and" commonalty of the city of New York and others.
James- R. Fancher, for appellant.
Charles Blandy, for relator, respondent.
Terence Farley, for commissioner of public works

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This "proceeding was commenced - to- obtain a peremptory mandamus requiring"'the. mayor,' etc., 'of-the city of New York, 'the commissioner of public works, and the superintendent,of incumbrances to'remove from 'certain of the public streets of the city of New York certain incumbrances .described in the writ; 'and a peremptory mandamus was, upon the 28th of June,-1896, duly issued in accordance with the prayer- of - the petition. Subsequently; and on-July'2, 1896, an order to "show cause was obtained requiring the parties to that proceeding to show cause why an order should not be made directing the appellant, Doyle, to be made a party respondent therein, and this is an appeal from the order denying that motion. We think this order should be affirmed, upon the ground that, when the motion was made, proceeding was pending to which the appellant could be made a party. The writ of mandamus had issued requiring the public officers to perform their duty, and the proceeding had terminated. If any one interfered with the rights of the appellant he had a remedy against the one so interfering, but it would be useless to make him a party to a proceeding which had terminated by the final order and the issuing of the writ of mandamus under it. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.