Case law

Higgins v. Soloman

2 Hall 482 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1829

It was clearly proved that he was sent on board the vessel, as the agent and supercargo of the defendant, and continued on *488 board as such, throughout the voyage. … The same doctrine is also fully recognized in Gardner v. Gardner, [10 J. R. 47,] and in Thomas v. Wood, [4 Cowen's R. 185.] 2.

Phelps v. Williamson

5 Sandf. 578 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 29, 1852

He relies on 2 Showers 283, and Blakely v. Dixon, 2 Bos. and Pul., 321; Andrew v. Moorhouse, 5 Taunt., 435; De Silvaile v. Kendall, 4 Mau. and Sel., 37; Saunders v. Drew, 3 Barn. and Ad., 445, and Mansfield v. … In Andrews et al. v. Moorhouse, 5 Taunt., 435; De Silvaile v. Kendall, 4 Mawle and Sel., 37; Mansfield et al. v. Maitland, 4 Barn. and Ald., 582, and Saunders v.

Norton v. Vultee

1 Hall 384 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1828

And there is a case reported in the same book, (Brown v. Hare, Cro. … Folliard v. Wallace, 2 John. R. 402. 1 Saund. note 1. 1 Salk. 316.]

Corrigan v. Coney Island Jockey Club

2 Misc. 512 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 15, 1893

of control; that the board is composed of the officers of each of said corporations, and is not incorporated ; that the board, without right, ordered that no entries of any horse for races be received from the plaintiff … Kelly v. Downing, 42 N. Y. 71 ; Willis v. Fairchild, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 405 ; Alexander v. Kaite, 10 Daly, 506 ; Swart v. Boughton, 35 Hun, 281 . There is a dictum in Wetmore v. Porter, 92 N.

Packard v. Lyon

5 Duer 82 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1855

(Taylor v. Snyder, 3 Denio, 145 ; Spies v. Gilman, 1 Comst. 321.) … She was, at both periods, keeping a boarding-house. The holder was bound to use all reasonable and proper diligence to find the maker and demand payment. “Whoever,” says Judge Thompson, in Anderson v. Drake, 14 J.

Dow v. Hope Insurance

1 Hall 166 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 15, 1828

The court, in the case of Havens v. … In Havens v.

Atlantic Fire & Marine Insurance v. Boies

6 Duer 583 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 21, 1857

(Garush v. James, 12 J. R. 146; Wilson v. Little, 2 Com. 443; Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill, 497 ; Stearns v. Marsh, 5 Denio, 227 ; Brown v. Ward, 3 Duer, 660 .)

Bacon v. Heywood

11 Misc. 7 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1895

Youngs v. Lee, 12 N. Y. 551 ; Day v. Saunders, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 495 ; Brown v. Leavitt, 31 N. Y. 113 ; Pratt *9 v. Coman, 37 id. 440 ; Park Bank v. Watson, 42 id. 490; Chrysler v. Renois, 43 id. 209 ; Paddon v. … Taylor, 44 id. 371; Clothier v. Adriance, 51 id. 322 ; Bank v. Crow, 60 id. 85 ; Nickerson v. Ruger, 84 id. 675.

Ogden v. Raymond

5 Bosw. 16 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 21, 1859

Yet it is also proven that it was not the custom of the Board to inquire into the financial matters; consequently the Board, as a Board sitting, did not know of the transaction. … I do not understand that that case, or that of Gillet v.

McKelsey v. Lewis

3 Abb. N. Cas. 61 · The Superior Court of New York City · Sep 15, 1877

Parker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388 , gives the practice in such cases. Under the present system, a delivery is sometimes effected through the intervention of a referee. … It is aside of the merits (Sheldon v. Weeks, 2 Barb. 533 ; Chapman v. Hammersley, 4 Wend. 173 ). This consideration may affect the defendant’s action.

People ex rel. New York Underground Railway Co. v. Newton

26 Jones & S. 439 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 1, 1890

Mygatt v. Supervisors etc., 11 N. Y. 563 ; People ex rel. Perkins v. Hawkins, 46 lb. 9 ; People ex rel. Martin v. Brown, 55 lb. 191. … That they have not, nor has either of them, obtained the consent of the board of aldermen of the city of New York. “18.

Kinsman v. New York Mutual Insurance

5 Bosw. 460 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 10, 1859

Co. v. Center, 4 Wend., 45 ; Schieffelin v. New York Ins. Co., 9 J. … (See, on this subject, Andrew v. Moorhouse, 5 Taunt., 435; Saunders v. Drew, 3 Barn. & Ad., 445; Winter v. Haldimand, 2 id., 649; Manfield v. Maitland, 4 Barn & Ald., 582; Watson v. Duykinck, 3 J. R., 335; Phelps v.

McColl v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

7 Abb. N. Cas. 151 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1878

Brown, J., instructed the jury . . “ that the plaintiff could not recover; first, because the dispatch was addressed in ambiguous language, which did not explain itself to the common understanding, and in consequence the … The message was; “If we have any old Southern on hand, sell same before board. Buy five Hudson at board.” “Hudson” was changed to “hundred,” so that five hundred old Southern were bought.

Griffin v. Cranston

10 Bosw. 1 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 29, 1862

To vitiate this sale, there must have been fraud in fact; (what was formerly denominated fraud in law, no longer exists;) (Cunningham v. Freeborn, 11 Wend., 240 ; Wilson v. Robertson, 21 N. Y. … The cases to which we were referred by the plaintiff’s counsel were reservations of parts of the assigned property for the benefit of the assignor; thus in Goodrich v.

McCullough v. Colby

5 Bosw. 477 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 10, 1859

The following are the leading authorities in our Courts connected with a fraudulent conveyance of real estate: In Brinckerhoff v. Brown, (4 Johns. Ch. … The former case (Beck v. Burdett) cannot give support to the proposition; I think its language is hostile to it. The other case (Brinckerhoff v. Brown) does not sustain it. *496 In The Mohawk Bank v.

Moore v. Westervelt

9 Bosw. 558 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 29, 1862

Those views were not disapproved of by the appellate Court, (Moore v. Westervelt, 21 N. Y. … R.,. 105,) but he was bound to take a certain degree of care in protecting and securing it while in his custody on board of such vessel, what that degree of care was, was not adjudicated.

Petersen v. Swan

21 Jones & S. 151 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 7, 1886

The plaintiff was a seaman on board the bark Vilora H. … As to the further point that the captain sailed the vessel on what is known as shares, it was held in Scarff v. Metcalf (22 Week.

People ex rel. McCullough v. Cram

72 N.Y. St. Rep. 266 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 18, 1895

People v. Board of Fire Com’rs of City of New York, 73 N. Y. 437 ; Bergen v. Powell, 94 id. 591 ; Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 239 ; Laimbeer v. Mayor, etc., 4 Sandf. 109 ; People v. Thompson, 94 N. Y. 451 ; People v. … People v. Koch, 2 St. Rep. 110 ; Jackson, v. Mayor, etc., 87 Hun, 296 ; 68 St. Rep. 270 ; People v. Board of Fire Com’rs of City of New York, 73 N. Y. 439 .

Clark v. Davis

28 Abb. N. Cas. 135 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1892

Brown, 79 N. Y. 390 ). The possession under this statute' differs from the possession .required by the statute of limitations. … R. 426 ; Dawley v. Brown, supra). The defendant pleads that he and his predecessors in title have had continuous adverse possession of the strip of land claimed for more than twenty years.

Kenny v. Martin

11 Misc. 651 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1895

Fincke v. Police Comrs., 66 How. Pr. 327 ; Burch v. Cavanaugh, 12 Abb. (N. S.) 414; Davis v. American Society, 75 N. Y. 362 ; Murphy v. Board of Police, 11. Abb. N. C. 337. See, also, People v. Moses, 140 N. … Y. 214 ; Kramer v. Board of Police, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 492; Cercle Francais De L'Harmonie v. French, 19 Abb. N.