Case law

Brown v. Brown

31 How. Pr. 481 · The Superior Court of New York City · Sep 15, 1865

Brown v. Ward

9 How. Pr. 497 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1854

The pledgee then caused the stock to be offered at the board of brokers, where he offered it at the rate of fifty-three per cent., which he could not get. … Hamilton in the superior court, and others, were referred to as deciding that a sale at the board of brokers of stock pledged could not be made without an express stipulation to that effect; and that a sale to be valid must

Brown v. Brown

4 Rob. 688 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 30, 1866

(Van Dyne v. Thayre, 19 Wend. 162 . *701 Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95 . Balter v. Chase, 6 id. 482. Runyan v. Stewart, 12 Barb. 537 .) … Bank of Utica v. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 399 . Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Caine’s Cas. 1. Truscott v. King, 6 N. Y. Rep. 147 .)

Brown v. McCune

5 Sandf. 224 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1851

We believe the law remains as it was laid down in Johnson v. Pie, 1 Kel. 905 and 913 (S. … It is stated in that case that the same point was held the previous term, in the case of Grove v. Nevil.

Birckhead v. Brown

5 Sandf. 134 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 28, 1851

The cases in our own courts, and particularly Gardiner v. Buchbee ( 3 Cow. 120 ), Burt v. Sternbugh ( 4 Cow. 559 ), and Bouchaud v. Diaz ( 3 Denio 238 ), entirely correspond with those that have been quoted. Gardiner v. … (Miller v. Marnice, 6 Hill 122 .)

Brown v. Richardson

7 Rob. 57 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1868

Brown, or order, at different dates, on demand. C. L. Brown indorsed the notes in this action to his brother, the plaintiff. … Brown voluntarily received the $3340.14, from Woods, when there was no obligation upon him so to do.

Brown v. Platt

8 Bosw. 324 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 22, 1861

(Edgell v. Hart, 9 N. Y. R., 216 ; Gardner v. McEwen, 19 N. Y. R., 126 ; Williston v. Jones, 6 Duer, 504 ; Marston v. Vultee, 12 Abb. Pr. R., 143.) The language of the mortgage is not altogether consistent with itself.

Brown v. Windmuller

3 Jones & S. 567 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 4, 1873

Brown v. Bradshaw

1 Duer 199 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 30, 1852

McNulty, “ Bought of Brown & Corning, “ Wholesale and Retail “ Dealers in Lumber. “Terms Cash.” … He said he would pay the men that day, and asked if there were any other bills on the buildings, except those for which he was accountable, mentioning that of Brown & Corning, and he. said those would 'be paid to-morrow.

Hewlett v. Brown

7 Abb. Pr. 74 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1858

Brown v. Burlingham

5 Sandf. 418 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 28, 1852

that from a father to a son, and, in an elaborate judgment, the court of appeals has recently determined that this doctrine is not confined to.brothers and sisters, but extends to and embraces their descendants (McGregor v.

Smith v. Brown

1 Duer 665 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 3, 1853

Squires v. Brown

22 How. Pr. 35 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 20, 1861

There was, therefore, error in rejecting proof that the *47 defendant Brown resigned his office of trustee before the first of December, 1856. … There must be a reversal of the judgment as to the defendant Brown, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Corp v. Brown

2 Sandf. 293 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 30, 1848

Brown v. Cooper

65 How. Pr. 126 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1883

Brown v. Jenison

3 Sandf. 732 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 12, 1851

Brown v. Wilmerding

5 Duer 220 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1856

Brown v. Richardson

1 Bosw. 402 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 27, 1857

See Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y. R. 435.

Kinkaid v. Kipp & Brown

1 Duer 692 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1853

the complaint does not appear on this motion; hut the defendants answered jointly and severally, that they were at and during the times mentioned in the complaint, owners-of a line of stages or omnibuses, known as Kipp & Brown … The verification is as follows : “Solomon-Kipp and Abraham Brown, being severally duly sworn, say, each for himself, that the foregoing answer is true of his own knowledge, except so far as the same alleges a want of sufficient

Brown v. Morgan

2 Bosw. 485 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 13, 1858

Westervelt brings the case within the authority of Andrews v. Durant, (1 Kernan’s Bep. 85.) The ownership of the vessel was in Westervelt, until she was completed and delivered. … There may arise a case, in which a building contract is limited to so small a part of the vessel as to create an exception to the rule of Andrews v.