Case law

Safford v. Drew

3 Duer 627 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 11, 1854

This is fully stated in the case of Carey v. The Berkshire R. R. Co., 1 Cushing, 475 . (See 1 Sanders R. 216, n. 1; Baron Parke in Blake v. The Midland County R. R. Co., hereafter cited; Barber v. … In Murphy v.

Samuel Harris & Sons v. Moody & Telfair

17 Bosw. 210 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 19, 1859

(Cram v. Aiken, 13 Maine R, 229; Sproat v. Donnell, 26 Maine R., 185; Barber v Brace, 3 Conn., 9 ; Dodge v. Bartol, 5 Greenl., 286; Hampton v. Brig Thaddeus, 4 Martin N. S., [Lou.,] 582; Lenox v. United States Ins. … J., and Park, J., in Brown v. Stapyleton. (4 Bing., 119.) And in Peters v. Milligan, (cited in Park on Ins., 211,) it was held that gold, silver, jewels and precious stones contribute.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Dalton

58 N.Y. St. Rep. 360 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1894

O'Toole v. Board of Excise, 42 St. … If the board had not accorded a full hearing, one might have been directed.

Lorillard v. Clyde

16 Jones & S. 409 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 4, 1882

Y. 14 ; citing People v. Johnson, 38 N. Y. 63 ; Remington Paper Co. v. O’Dougherty, 81 N. Y. 474 ). … Brown, 79 N. Y. 390 ; citing Stowell v. Chamberlain, 60 N. Y. 272 ; Perry v. Dickerson, 85 N. Y. 345 ). The verdict of the jury did not itself constitute an estoppel.

Hanford v. Higgins

1 Bosw. 441 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 27, 1857

It is impossible to say, from the amount of the verdict, at what *448 rate the board, lodging, and services of Mrs. Mead, or the services of the plaintiff were estimated. … (Dixon v. Frazee, 1 E. D. Smith’s R. 32; Flanders v. Crolius, 1 Duer, 206 .) The fourth request was charged in substance.

Corn Exchange Bank v. Cumberland Coal Co.

1 Bosw. 436 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 27, 1857

meeting of the board.” … (Dawes v. the North River Ins. Co., 7 Cow. 462 .) Although the restrictions here are contained in the by-laws of the defendants, knowledge of those by-laws is brought home to the plaintiffs through their president.

Matthews v. Chicopee Manufacturing Co.

3 Rob. 711 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 28, 1865

(Cuyler v. Cuyler, 2 John. 185 . Phelps v. Johnson, 8 id. 54. Brown v. Williams, 4 Wend. 360 .) Although it has been observed in cases where the debt was from two jointly, (Harrison v. Close, 2 John 448; Rowley v. … Stoddard, 7 id. 207; Catskill Bank v. Messenger, 9 Cowen, 37; Chenango Bank v. Osgood, 4 Wend, 607; Couch v. Mills, 21 Wend. 424 ; Hosack v. Rogers, 8 Paige, 229 ,) or one of the parties was liable as surety, (Brown v.

Brandt v. Mayor of New York

16 Jones & S. 293 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 5, 1882

Ryan v. French. … remained subject to the control of, the board.

Moses v. Banker

7 Rob. 441 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 8, 1868

(Norman v. Wells, 17 Wend. 136. Mabbett v. White, 12 N. Y. Rep. 442 .) … (Waterville Manufacturing Co. v. Brown, 9 How. Pr. 27 .)

Brewster v. Wooster

26 Jones & S. 10 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 4, 1890

Under the agreements between the defendant and Brown, Brewster and Bateman, the defendant was under no obligation to convey to .the said Brown, Brewster and Bateman the property mentioned in the agreements until each of the … Iron Company v. The *13 Gilbert Elevated Railroad Co., 91 N. Y. 155—in which event the plaintiff would be restored to his original rights, which are to recover what he had paid on the contract. Battle v.

Aspinwall v. Meyer

2 Sandf. 180 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 11, 1848

We think it fairly inferrible that the policy was given up to the company, and that the plaintiffs parted with enough, within the case of Stalker v. … (Guernsey v. Burns, 25 Wend. 411 . Hall v. Gird, 7 Hill, 587 .)

McKeon v. Lane

1 Hall 319 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1828

Now in order to convict this defendant, the plaintiff must prove at the trial, that a subpoena was exhibited to the witness under the seal of the court; that a copy thereof v/as served upon him, and that he was tendered such … But we were referred to a precedent in Brown’s Entries. Upon looking at that precedent, we find that the averment is there expressly made, and there must be judgment for the defendant on the demu? rer.

Bienenstok v. Ammidown

59 N.Y. St. Rep. 471 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1894

Dec. 470 ; 2 Keyes, 655 ; Wright v. Brown, 67 N. Y. 1 ; Anonymous, Ib. 598. It is sufficient if the intent exist at the time the goods are received, 'though subsequent to the sale. Whitten v. Fitzwater, 129 N. … Stephens v. Board, 79 N. Y. 183 ; Justh v. Nat. Bank, 56 N. Y. 478 ; and see Southwich v. First Nat. Bank, 84 N. Y. 420 ; Newhall v. Wyatt, 139 N. Y. 452 ; 54 St. Rep. 708 .

Diblin v. Murphy

3 Sandf. 19 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 26, 1849

(Guerry v. Kerton, 2 Rich. R. 507; and see Young v. Englehard, 1 Howard’s Miss. R. 19.) That the court has entire control of the matter, is shown by the case of Boyd v. … Brown, 17 Pick. 453 , which was a similar case, the action being trespass.

Houghton v. Dodge

5 Bosw. 326 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 5, 1859

The settlement was laid before the Board in May, but at how early a day does not appear. Whatever the date, the Trustees, as a Board, were then officially informed of the fact of the settlement and of its details. … The case of Houghton v. McAuliff et al., (decided in February, 1859,) is unlike the present in this respect.

Gardner v. Gordon

16 Bosw. 369 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 3, 1858

The defendant was then offered as a witness on his own behalf, on the ground that Brown was the assignor of a thing in action. He was rejected, and an exception taken. The case of Watson v. … The case of Ander *372 son v. JSusteed, ( 5 Duer, 485 ,) settled this point also. An indorser is not an assignor within the proper construction of the 899th section of the Code. * Judgment affirmed with costs. Porter v.

Master of the Port v. Cartwright

6 Sandf. 236 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 21, 1850

R 283; License Cases, 5 Ibid. 504; Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, 2 Peters, 250 ; New York v. Miln, 11 Peters, S. C. R. 130; Brown v. State of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 ; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Peters, 511 .) … The case of Gibbons v.

Scott v. Johnson

5 Bosw. 213 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 28, 1859

(Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank, 13 N. Y. R., [3 Kern.,] 309; 19 id., 312; Marvine v. Hymers, 12 id., [2 Kern.,] 223; Central Bank Brooklyn v. Lang, 1 Bosw., 202 ; Holbrook v. … (Central Bank of Brooklyn v. Lang, 1 Bosw., 202 ; The Marine Bank v. Clements in this Court, November, 1858; Ogden v. Andre and Ogden v. Raymond, April, 1859; 1 Hoyt v. Thompson, 1 Seld., 333.)

Kenny v. Cunard Steamship Co.

23 Jones & S. 558 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 6, 1888

Kenny v. The Cunard Co., 52 Super. Gt. 434. This action was for damages from the alleged negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was hurt from boards slipping from a sling, upon him. … The learned counsel cites several cases, and among them Loughlin v. State of N. Y., 105 N. Y. 163 . The cited case sustains the proposition.

Howard v. Orient Mutual Insurance

2 Rob. 539 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1864

Paddock v. Franklin Ins. Co., 11 Pick. 227 .) … (Mathews v. The Howard Insurance Co., 1 Kern. 15.)