Case law

Gilman v. Prentice

3 N.Y. St. Rep. 544 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 9, 1886

Valoton v. Seignett, 2 Abb., 121 ; Griffith v. Brown, 3 Robt., 627; Baker v. Hamersley, 16 How., 461 ; Chadwick v. Spargur, 1 N. Y., Civ. Pro. R., 422; McIntyre v. Hernandez, 7 Abb., N. S., 214. … Brown v. Betts, 13 Wend., 29 .

People ex rel. Johnson v. Supervisors of Delaware

9 Abb. Pr. 408 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1870

It is not denied that the relator is entitled to costs in the case of Board of Excise v. Coan. … Y., 473 ; People v. Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 30 How. Pr., 173 ; Bryce v. Supervisors of Cayuga County, 20 Barb., 294 ; Bright v. Supervisors of Chenango, 18 Johns., 242 ).

Bliss v. Bliss

7 Bosw. 339 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 10, 1860

So in this State, in Browne et al. v. Robinson et al. … Henderson, (1 East. 355 ;) Fish v. Kempton, (17 Man. Gr. & Scott, 687 ;) as well as the cases of Browne and others v. Bobinson and others (Caine’s Cases in Error, 341), and Gordon v. Church (2 Caine’s T.

Slater v. Wood

9 Bosw. 15 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 21, 1861

Reg. v. Vincent, (9 C. & P. 91; Reg. v. Neale et al., Id., 431.) … McCune v. The Board of Police, 19 N. Y. R., 188.)

Phelps v. Swan

2 Sweeny 696 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1870

The judgment record may of itself (without any case or bill of exceptions being annexed) present a question proper to be argued and decided at General Term (Rankin v. Pine, 4 Abbt., 309; Brown v. … Heacock, 9 How., 345 ; Robinson v. H. R. R. Co., 3 Abbt., 117).

Storrs v. Flint

14 Jones & S. 498 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 6, 1880

Brown, 68 N. Y. 355 ; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 Id. 280, Opin. by Allen, J.). … Y. 446 ; Simson v. Brown, supra).

Switzer v. Valentine

11 Duer 96 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 2, 1854

That they lived together as husband and wife, that he worked at his trade, and that she kept a boarding-house. … (Lovett v. Robinson, 7 How. Pr. R. p. 105; Hurd v. Cass, 9 Barb. S. C. R. 366; Shumway v. Cooper, 16 Barb. S. C. R. 556.)

Ayres v. O'Farrell

10 Bosw. 143 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 5, 1863

Pr., 356 ; Houghton v. Townsend, 8 Id., 441 ; Quin v. Chambers, 1 Duer, 673 .) … (Boyce v. Brown, 7 Barb., 81 .)

Edwards v. McLean

23 Jones & S. 126 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 21, 1887

See Franklin v. Brown, 53 Super. Ct. 474. None of the exceptions taken being tenable, the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with ■costs. Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurred.

Morrison v. Press Publishing Co.

27 Jones & S. 216 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 16, 1891

Bergmann v. Jones, 94 N. Y. 51 . … Voltz v. Blackmar, 64 N. Y. 444 ; Millard v. Brown, 35 Ib. 297. The doing of any act without just cause, or a wrongful act purposely done, is malicious.

Bella v. New York, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

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

Miller v. N. Y. L. & W. Railroad Co., 20 N. Y. State Rep., 157. … The case of Atkins v. Elwell ( 45 N.

Bryce v. Lorillard Fire Insurance

3 Jones & S. 394 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 5, 1873

Besides, there being perhaps some conflict between him and the plaintiff’s witness Brown, we cannot, upon well-settled principles, disturb the conclusions of the court. … In Kennedy v. St. Lawrence Ins.

Svenson v. Atlantic Mail Steamship Co.

1 Jones & S. 277 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 29, 1871

But the facts of this case, as tending to raise a presumption of law against the defendants, cannot, I think, be distinguished from Norris v. Kohler, 41 N. Y. 42 . … The defendants admitted themselves to be the owners of the steamship, and upon the authority of Norris v. Kohler, that was enough to charge them for the negligent acts of all persons on board.

Cory v. Long

2 Sweeny 491 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 30, 1870

This principle is applicable in favor of sureties (Ranelaugh v. Hayes, 1 Vernon, 190; Hoyes v. Ward, 4 Johns. Ch. R., 132; King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch., 562 ; Champion v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch., 406 ). 6. … On the right of a party, in the precise situation of this plaintiff, to compel specific performance of a general covenant of indemnity, though it exceeds only in damages (Champion v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch.

Kemp v. Carnley

3 Duer 1 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 24, 1853

(Denning v. Colt, 3 Sand. S. C. Rep. 284; Hayes v. Heyer, Ibid.) An assignment under such circumstances, giving preferences, would be even more objectionable ; and this was the decision in St. John v. … The advance of the money secured is distinctly proven by Brown. The mortgage was duly filed in the Eegister’s Office „ of the county, under the statute, on the day of its date.

Eno v. Del Vecchio

11 Duer 53 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 28, 1854

In Brown v. … But Brown v.

De Forest v. Baker

1 Abb. Pr. 34 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1863

complaint for want of prosecution, then the injunction would be dissolved by the judgment rendered, and the judgment would be a final determination of the rights of the parties in that action (Code of Pro., § 245 ; Carpenter v. … Brown the plaintiff’s attorney, states that the complaint in the injunction suit was dismissed; but does not say whether it was for want of prosecution, or on what ground.

White v. Rintoul

17 Jones & S. 421 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 17, 1883

J., in Mallory v. Gillett (21 N. … Brown v. Weber ( 38 N. Y. 187 ), holds that where the promise' creates suretyship, it must be in writing. Smith v. Ives ( 15 Wend. 182 ), and Watson v.

Rich v. Husson

6 Sandf. 115 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1850

It has indeed been held by the court of common pleas in England, in the cases of Brown v. Brown, (4 Taunton, 752,) and Maint v. … In Marquand v. Webb, and Pierce v.

Knowlton v. Providence & New York Steamship Co.

1 Jones & S. 370 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 3, 1871

any such ship or vessel, by reason or by means of any fire happening to or on board of the said ship or vessel, unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner or owners.” … The question as to what waters were included in the term “inland navigation,” was fully considered and •discussed by Judges Nelson and Catron in their opinions in the case of Moore v. Transportation Company, 2 How. U.