Case law

Irwin v. Brown

26 Jones & S. 585 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 27, 1890

Brown v. Hardie

5 Rob. 678 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 6, 1867

It would have been error in the judgment, as it originally stood, unless modified, (Dwight v. Enos, 5 Seld. 470; Fitzhugh v.

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.

Brown v. Northrup

15 Abb. Pr. 333 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 15, 1873

Brown v. Helmuth

2 Misc. 566 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1892

Brown v. Gunnison

14 Jones & S. 572 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 18, 1880

Brown v. Mercer

5 Jones & S. 265 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1874

The case of Cook v. Starkweather, 18 Abb. Pr. N. Y. 400, is a case in point. While there was a clear difference in some particulars, the imitation in other respects was close, and the defendant was restrained.

Wood v. Brown

18 Jones & S. 516 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 7, 1884

Stokes v. Brown

2 Sweeny 457 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 4, 1870

the five days’ notice required by the terms of the contract was intended to be, and was, a condition precedent to the right of the vendors to deliver and to the obligation of the plaintiffs to receive the oil (see Fowler v. … Anderson, 1 Hill, 519 ; Topping v. Root, 5 Cowen, 404; Fowler v. Rigney, supra; Benjamin on Sales, 431; Hilliard on Sales, 158).

Roosevelt v. Brown

1 Duer 642 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1852

Pierce v. Brown

8 Jones & S. 549 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 7, 1876

Riley v. Brown

44 How. Pr. 429 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1872

to report the same, with his opinion thereon, but to determine a disputed question of fact arising upon such motion, namely:' whether or not there has been a service of the summons in this action upon the defendant John Brown

Harnickell v. Brown

13 Jones & S. 350 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 3, 1879

The plaintiff’s counsel asked plaintiff, while testifying, “ What did you mean, when you wrote the letter, by the words ‘for me’ V’ This was allowed, under exception, and the answer was that he “must have meant—as I had asked … Brown, 100,000 Lake, July, Aug., 33 cts.”

Brown v. Bradshaw

8 How. Pr. 176 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1852

Fleury v. Brown

9 How. Pr. 217 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1852

Thompson v. Brown

2 Jones & S. 1 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1871

Brown v. Gunnison

14 Jones & S. 562 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 5, 1880

Miles v. Brown

6 Jones & S. 400 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 9, 1874

The appellants argue that it appears by the evidence that the levy of the attachment in Brown v. … Bufford, was made July 3, 1869, before the bond was given; that the removal was made of the goods from the store, not under the attachment in Brown v. Bufford, but in Lovell v.

Brown v. Ney

32 N.Y. St. Rep. 1138 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 5, 1890

Brown v. Recknagel

24 Jones & S. 330 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 7, 1889