Case law

Plant v. Schuyler

4 Abb. Pr. 146 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1867

B. is, creates no issue, and amounts to a mere traverse not recognized by our practice” (Brown v. Ryckman, 12 How. Pr., 313 ; Adams v. Holley, Id., 326 ; Seeley v. Engell, 17 Barb., 530 ). … Rice, Id., 1; Tompkins v. Acer, 10 Id., 309).

Anderson v. James

4 Rob. 35 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 12, 1866

(Williams v. Merle, 11 Wend. 80 . Browning v. Hanford, 5 Denio, 586 .) … (Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 John. 454 .)

Caldwell v. Bartlett

3 Duer 341 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 20, 1854

(Mowry v. Walsh, 8 Cowen, 238; Parker v. Patrick, 5 J. R. 175; White v. Garden et al., 5 Law and Equ. R. 379; Stevenson v. Newman, 16 Law and Equ. R. 401-408; Rowley v. Bigelow, 12 Pick. 307 ; Hoffman et al. v. … The mere receiving then on board of the vessel, when so delivered, would not be a trespass, nor amount to a conversion. (Ely v. Ehle, 3 Coms. 506.)

Monnet v. Merz

28 Jones & S. 256 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 11, 1892

If a party seeks to set aside a judgment in toto after he has collected the amount by execution, the collection of the judgment is a waiver of the appeal, (Knapp v. Brown, 48 N. … Brown, supra; Genet v. Davenport, 60 N. Y., 194 .

In re Bloomingdale

73 N.Y. St. Rep. 350 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 1, 1895

Decker v. Waters, 4 Misc. Rep. 1 ; 53 St. Rep. 720 ; Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657 ; Ex parte Persons, 1 Hill, 655 ; People v. Norton, 7 Barb. 477 ; People v. Jones, 54 id. 315; People v. … People v. Waters, supra; People ex rel. Jones v. Bennett, 4 Misc. Rep. 10 ; 53 St. Rep. 724 .

Bradley v. Wheeler

4 Rob. 18 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 12, 1866

'It is conceded that the contract was a sale and purchase of all the hay and clover on board of the barge, and that a portion of it was put on board the schooner, which, it is claimed by the defendants, was the place designated … (Olyphant v. Baker, 5 Denio, 379 Crofoot v. Bennett, 2 Comst. 258. Joyce v. Adams, 8 N. 7. Rep. 291. Wooster v. Sherwood, 25 id. 278. Terry v. Wheeler, Id. 520.)

De Agreda v. Mantel

1 Abb. Pr. 130 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1854

Guynet, one of the plaintiffs in the original, and a defendant in the cross action, was on board the Arctic, which was. *133 ■-destroyed on the 2'Tth of September, 1854, and that date may, ■for the present questions, be taken … (Ibid, and see Champion v. Brown, 6 John. Ch. Rep., 398). I may observe here, that the cases of Merserau v. Ryerss, 3 Comstock, 261, and Stuart v.

Landon v. Mayor of New York

7 Jones & S. 467 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 7, 1875

In Freedman v. Segel (10 Blatchford, 327), it was attempted to distinguished Day v. … State officers are not necessarily those whose duties extend over the whole state (Greaton v. Griffin, 4 Abb. N. S. 310; Russell v. The Mayor, 2 Denio, 472, 481, 483 ; Healey v.

In re Lauterjung

16 Jones & S. 308 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 19, 1882

Haines v. Smith ( 45 N. Y. 772) ; *310 People ex rel. Folk v. The Board of Police (69 Ib. 408); People ex rel. Miller v. The Board of Police ( 6 Hun, 229 ) ; People v. Betts ( 55 N. Y. 600 ); People ex rel. Clapp v. … Fiske v. Brooklyn ( 22 Barb. 404 ) ; People v. Board of Supervisors ( 56 Barb. 452 ; People v. Supervisors of Greene Co. ( 5 Hun, 650 ); People v. Board of Supervisors ( 51 N. Y. 401 ); Hagadorn v. Raux ( 72 N.

Brouwer, Receiver, &c. of The Pelican Mut. Insurance v. Harbeck

1 Duer 114 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 19, 1852

(Howland v. Myer, 3 Coms. 290; Hyde v. Lynde, 4 Coms. 387.) … Bronson, Ch., in Gillett v.

Dougherty v. Valloton

6 Jones & S. 455 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 4, 1875

Such transfer constituted Brown. a bona fide holder, and notice to him, that they were accommodation notes, did not affect his right to recover against the maker. Such is the law of this State (Harrington v. … And such a note may be taken for an antecedent debt (Robins v. Richardson, 2 Bosw. 248 ). Or even as security for a precedent debt (Schepp v. Carpenter, 51 N. Y. R. 602).

Lewis v. Williams

1 Hall 430 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 15, 1829

So in Maggrath v. … In the case of Heyliger v.

Wilson v. Roberts

5 Bosw. 100 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 9, 1859

and Draper v. … See Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. R., 315, 329.

Southworth v. Isham

3 Sandf. 448 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 16, 1850

(See also Colegrove v. Dios Santos, 2 B. & C. 76; Lyde v. Russell, 1 B. & Adolphus 394.) … Rep. 266, Holley v. Brown.) The case before us is stronger than the foregoing one decided in Connecticut. Here the sails were worn out, and were replaced *451 by those for the recovery of which this action was brought.

Newberry v. Mayor of New York

1 Sweeny 369 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 11, 1869

It is clear that the provisions of the statute in regard to notice is not applicable to a case of this kind (Shudlim v. The Board of Supervisors of Kings Co., 43 Barb., 490 ; Ely v. … The Board of Supervisors of Niagara Co., 36 N. Y. Rep., 297 ). The exception of the plaintiff must be sustained, the order dismissing the complaint reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Lambert v. Benner

1 Sweeny 665 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 4, 1869

In Lewis v. Blake (10 Bosworth, 198), Monell, J., states the rule to have been uniform for many years that the court will not interfere with the verdict of the jury unless it is dearly against the weight of evidence. … So in Cathron v. Collins (29 How. P.

North American Fire Insurance v. Graham

5 Sandf. 197 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 8, 1851

In Brinckerkoff v. Brown, 4 J. C. R. 671, the complainant filed his bill before he obtained judgment, though it was admitted on the hearing, that a judgment had then been recovered. … Brown, 4 John. C. R. above referred to. In the case of Clarkson v.

Cunningham v. East River Electric Light Co.

28 Jones & S. 282 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 11, 1892

See Nebenzahl v. Townsend, 61 How., 353 ; Landt v. Hilts, 19 Barb., 283 ; Sleight v. Ogle, 4 E. D. Smith, 445; Marks v. Townsend, 97 N. Y., 590 ; Reynolds v. Corp, 3 Cai., 267 ; Brown v. Crowe, 5 Wend., 298 . … See Sleight v. Ogle, 4 E. D. Smith, 445; also Von Latham v. Libby, 38 Barb., 339 ; Brown v. Chadsey, 39 Ib., 253; Ackroyd v. Ackroyd, 3 Daly, 38 ; Castro v. Uriarte, 2 Civ. Pro. R., 214.

Zorkowski v. Astor

69 N.Y. St. Rep. 114 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1895

Cobb v. Dolphin Manuf. Co., 108 N. Y. 463 ; 13 St. Rep. 697 . … See Duke of Buccleuth v. Board of Works. L. R., 5 H. L. 418.

Scholle v. Scholle

24 Jones & S. 399 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 7, 1889

Romaine Brown, whereupon it was stipulated that Brown should be bound by the printed terms of sale. Subsequently Mr. … In Russell v. Russell, 36 N.