Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ERNEST DREVET, Respondent, v. THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-08
Citations: 37 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ERNEST DREVET, Respondent, v. THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.
Judges: Beady and Daniels, JJ., concurred»
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 37
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ERNEST DREVET, Respondent, v. THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.
Practice —power of the eowrt to consider the weight of evidence in proceedings by certiorari — Section 3140 of the Code of Oivil Procedv/re is not applicable to proceedings commenced prior to September 1, 1880.
Appeal from an order of the Special Term, reversing the decision of the board of fire commissioners.
. The court at General Term said: “ The Special Term, following the decision of this court in the People ex rel. Murphy, held that it had no power in this case to review the proceedings of the board on questions relating to the weight of evidence. The People ex reh Murphy v. French was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (92 N. Y., 306), and it settles that in proceedings by certiorari to review the acton of inferior tribunals, commended prior to September, 1880, section 2140 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application. Such cases are governed by the law existing prior to the section of the Code cited talcing effect. As the law is now established by the Code the court is at liberty to review the evidence and proceedings upon consideration of the evidence, and to review the decision whenever it would feel. justified in setting aside a verdict upon the same evidence as against the. weight of evidence.” * * *
George P. Andrews, for the appellant.
Douglas A. Temen, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Davis, P. J.;
Beady and Daniels, JJ., concurred»
Order affirmed, with costs.