Case law

Jackson ex dem. Gatfield v. Strang

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

Chapman, (1 Peere, Wms. 663.) this distinction was recognised and established. … But the construction which adopts the restriction of time to qualify the limitation is beset with other difficulties, which are obviated by qualifying the event of death by the failure of issue.

Woods v. De Figaniere

1 Rob. 607 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 2, 1868

Clearly, it means any and every person, who, throughout its provisions, is described as a party to an action. … De Figaniere is the nominal party defendant, and the only person named as a party defendant; and to claim immunity from the statute compelling a party to submit to bé examined, he must show that some parties, when nominal

Foulke v. Thalmessinger

58 N.Y. St. Rep. 849 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1894

Judge Miller, concurring in the above, said: “Independent of any other view of the question, I think the judge who tried the cause, and heard the witnesses testify, was better qualified to determine whether the jury were … the issue which is to be established before them.”

Holsman v. Abrams

2 Duer 435 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 24, 1853

while she thus retains the possession, the relation of landlord and tenant is wholly dissolved, so as to discharge her absolutely from the payment of rent; and, to a doctrine so unreasonable in itself, unless shown to be established … In a qualified, but still in a legal sense, by force of the covenants in the original lease, she is its owner, and it is only by granting her a new lease, or by paying her its value, that the plaintiffs can divest her title

Harper v. Raymond

7 Abb. Pr. 142 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1858

Baymond and Wesley became agents and trustees to conduct the establishment, until an advantageous disposition could be made, and thus a great loss be averted. … The consequence of this was, that the right of Fletcher Harper was no longer embarrassed, or qualified by the influence of ■ the articles.

Haupt v. Pohlmann

16 Abb. Pr. 301 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1863

, whether there was a want of probable cause; clearly, an-instruction to the reverse of such proposition would not have been correct. … The charge that a commitment is not conclusive evidence of probable cause is correct, and does not qualify its being evidence, but merely its weight as such.

Fettretch v. Leamy

9 Bosw. 510 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 11, 1862

The first branch would only imply a temporary use, were it not qualified by allowing the beams to remain. … It should clearly have appeared whether the right of cutting off part of the defendant’s lintel arose from that of inserting beams, or followed the conversion of a wall into a party wall.

Noyes v. Blakeman

3 Sandf. 531 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 20, 1850

If this description is true, the propriety of the decree in its present form, is not to be questioned, for no doctrine is more •fully and clearly established, than that a feme covert in regard to her separate estate is considered … Sen. 190,) and for a time, courts of equity seem to have hesitated as to its adoption, and were disposed to qualify and restrict its application.

Beavers v. Lane

6 Duer 232 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 27, 1856

convenience was done from one boat into the other, did not constitute an absolute delivery, but was conditioned upon the payment therefor on the coming in of the measurer’s returns; and that there was evidence tending to establish … Uor is it denied that, where an owner, having sold his property, qualifies the delivery thereof by annexing a condition that pay-: ment shall be made, still a bona fide purchaser from the vendee, without notice of the condition

De Forest v. Fulton Fire Insurance

1 Hall 84 · The Superior Court of New York City · Aug 15, 1828

Most generally, he holds a bill of lading of the goods, vesting the legal title to the property itself, in him, or some acknowledgment of him by the consignor as absolute or qualified owner. … The contract of insurance, by a factor, against fire, seems to me to fall clearly within this general principal. It is a contract for the preservation and safe keeping of the property, until it can be sold.

Carnes v. Platt

6 Rob. 270 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 30, 1868

This was clearly erroneous. … First, then, does the evidence establish that the handing of the deed to Wetmore operated as a delivery thereof as his deed by Houghton, for the use of Anthony, with intent to pass the title to Anthony ?

Schnook v. Independent Order Sons of Benjamin

21 Jones & S. 181 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 8, 1886

In the absence of qualifying circumstances, the beneficiary intended by this contract was the lawful wife of Bernhard Schnook, in case she survived him. … But, in order to accomplish this, the plaintiff, upon whom the burden of proof rests, must clearly establish, not only that such designation was-made, but also that it became part of the contract.

Butterfield v. Klaber

52 How. Pr. 255 · The Superior Court of New York City · Sep 15, 1876

jarring and vibration, dust and noise in so far as the same are produced by the defendants’ engine and machinery; and secondly, whether upon the facts as they may be found the plaintiffs are entitled *257 to the indemnity and immunity … the sick, the afflicted, they whose refined tastes, habits and inclinations lead them to prefer complete silence and exclusion, and an abode remote from the busy haunts of human industry, are not to be selected as best qualified

Bella v. New York, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

24 N.Y. St. Rep. 921 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 12, 1889

commissioners to the legislature are'not made admissible as evidence, either by the act creating the board of railroad commissioners or by the Code of Civil Procedure, and, as they are inadmissible as evidence, without qualifying … proof, under the well-established rules of law relating to hearsay and secondary evidence, unless some statute can be found authorizing their admission in evidence, they cannot be considered competent.

Cook v. Beal

1 Bosw. 497 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 11, 1857

It was clearly proved upon *500 the trial, and is not denied, that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the wool in controversy, when it was sold by Tuthill to the defendants, and consequently, unless the sale was made by … Senator Yerplanck, in citing this passage, omits the qualifying and significant words, “ without any limitation of his authority,” and this omission led him to attribute a meaning to the learned Judge, widely different from

Corrigan v. Coney Island Jockey Club

29 Jones & S. 393 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 24, 1892

We agree with the learned court below that this announcement of the. colt’s eligibility in respect to ££ The Futurity ” race meant that he was ££ legally qualified to enter into it.” … The right to settle controversies, like the one in question, is just as firmly established, though it rests upon a different foundation.

Stilwell v. Staples

6 Duer 63 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1856

There is one proposition, the truth of which, if established, will go far to settle the case in favor of the defendant. … In the case of De Forest the goods were in the possession of the consignees, with a qualified interest in them for advances and charges, and then an entire interest in others.

Frank v. Chemical National Bank

13 Jones & S. 452 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 1, 1879

The facts disclosed negligence and suspicion on the part of the plaintiff, when the draft was sold to the felon, but it was held that these facts fell short of gross carelessness, which should, at least, be established, if … If this view prevailed, it would only be necessary for the criminal who had obtained possession of the checks he forged, to destroy or secrete them, and thus secure immunity to the bank paying the forged checks, from any

Dietz v. Farish

53 How. Pr. 217 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1877

So far as necessary the facts thus established- will be referred to hereafter. … Hot even a qualified or conditional delivery had been made to the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon took both duplicates into his possession, and both parties proceeded to the office of defendant’s counsel.

Talcott v. Belding

46 How. Pr. 419 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1873

Its want of certainty defeats the recital in the undertaking from operating as an absolute estoppel, and, it being clearly the plaintiff’s statement, and not the defendants, except by a qualified and enforced adoption with … The learned judge uses the qualifying words “received by delivery.”