Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.93s
12 N.Y.S. 409 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1890
In or about the year 1881 the defendants David S. and Delaplaine Brown commenced the manufacture of soap for the defendants George and George H. G. … Bach cake of soap manufactured by the defendants Brown was enveloped in a wrapper similar in color to the wrapper which had been all along used in the Babbitt business, except that it was of a lighter «hade.
Cited 0 timesPublished1 Abb. N. Cas. 452 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1876
That it was necessary that the requisites of law, through which an individual is deprived of his property, should be complied with (Jackson v. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88 ; Parker v. Overman, 18 How. U. 8. 137; Osterman v. … In order to have made a valid sale of the premises in question, the requirements of this section should also have been complied with (Williams v. Peyton, supra; Stead v. Course, 4 Cranch, 403 ).
Cited 1 timesPublished4 Thomp. & Cook 29 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1874
Lockwood is not denying, but affirming, this liability, and thereby ratifying the act of his agent Brown in receiving the agreement clothing him with that power.
Cited 0 timesPublished90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 613 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1894
Cullen, J., recommended affirmance on the authority of Rutherford v. Town of Madrid ( 77 Hun, 545 ).
Cited 0 timesPublished4 N.Y. St. Rep. 456 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1886
The plaintiff as sheriff had previously seized certain property under an attachment issued in favor of William Brown and another against Alfred Edwards.
Cited 0 timesPublished2 Cow. 503 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1824
(Cuyler v. *504 Vandcrwerk, 1 John. Cas. 247.) But clearly, it cannot he ma(je after judgment. Motion denied.
Cited 0 timesPublished9 Cow. 263 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1828
This is an action of trespass an¿ false imprisonment, brought by Brown against Demont. … Joseph Demont, (the defendant here,) Ridwd Demont and others v. Carey Brown, (the plaintiff here,) for the recovery of certain premises ; and also for the sum of $232 08, for damages and’ costs, &c.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna