Case law

White v. Baxter

41 Jones & S. 358 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 23, 1876

Y. 349 ; Willetts v. Sun Ins. Co. 45 Ib. 45 ; Train v. Gold, 5 Pick. 380 ). … Somhurst, 17 Maine, 303 ; Kempton v. Coffin, 12 Pick 129; Howe v. Buffalo, N. Y. and Erie R. Co., 37 N. Y. 297 ).

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.

Davies v. Mayor of New York

13 Jones & S. 373 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 3, 1879

The board of supervisors could act only in behalf of the county of ¡New York, and could not legislate in behalf of the city, which is a corporation independent and distinct from the county (People v. … The recorder has no authority, by his own inde *382 pendent act, to impose liability upon the city (Board of Supervisors of Richmond County v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620 ).

Ely v. Connolly

7 Abb. Pr. 8 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1869

That this is not such personal damage or injury-as will authorize the plaintiff to maintain his action is settled by the case of Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome County ( 18 N. Y., 155). … The law does not afford such an opportunity for excessive litigation, and to the same effect is the case of Roosevelt v. Draper ( 23 N. Y., 318 ).

Thomson v. Sixpenny Savings Bank

5 Bosw. 293 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 29, 1859

The case of Alexander v. … (See also Wilde v. Waters, 32 Eng. L. & Eq. R., 423; Mount v. Derick, 5 Hill, 456 ; Gunton v. Nurse, 2 Brod. & Bing., 447; Fouldes v. Willoughby, 8 Mees. & Welsb., 540; Hayward v. Seaward, 1 Moore & Scott, 459.)

Gilman v. Tucker

57 Jones & S. 324 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 5, 1889

The case of Denton v. Noyes, 6 Johns. 296 , has been approved by the highest court in this state, in particular by Brown v. Nichols, 42 N. Y. 26 . … In the present case, following Denton v.

Reilly v. Mayor of New York

16 Jones & S. 274 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 5, 1882

The People v. The Board of Police ( 19 N. … Hanrahan v. Board of Metropolitan Police ( 26 N.

Green v. Griswold

17 N.Y. St. Rep. 757 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 12, 1888

Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Ch. Rep., 510; Brown v Nichols, 42 N. Y., 30 . … White’s Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y., 344 . In point of fact, no other creditors have come in, in due time, since the commencement of this action, or offered to pay the expenses thereof.

Mott v. Hudson River Railroad

1 Rob. 585 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 30, 1863

Where there is neither willful mischief, contract or fraud, (Clark v. Brown, 18 Wend. 223, 229 ; Anthony v. Slaid, 11 Metc. 290 ; Acad *594 emy of Music v. … Hackett, 2 Hilt. 217 ;) and even in case of a contract, if there was no fraud, (Blanchard v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342 ,) only the immediate consequences are to he compensated for.

Chadsey v. Guion

16 Jones & S. 267 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 5, 1882

In American Insurance Co. v. … In the same case Senator Tracy used the principle of' Gardiner v.

Ludlow v. Vah Ness

8 Bosw. 178 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 27, 1861

Brown, 6 Paige, 448 ,) or devise, (Meakings v. Cromwell, 1 Seld., 136.) *188 So, too, if the instrument be such as I have considered it to be, its mere record Avas not notice to any one; (1 R. … Thus the case is brought, in my judgment, within the principle of Anstice v. Brown, ( 6 Paige, 448 ;) of Craig v. Leslie, ( 3 Wheat., 563 ;) and Meakings v.

Walton v. Chadwick

58 N.Y. St. Rep. 145 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 29, 1893

See Lowenstein v. Salinger, 17 N. Y. Supp. 70 ; 42 St. Rep. 414 ; Brown v. Wigton, 18 N. Y. Supp. 490 ; 45 St. Rep. 135 .

Mills v. Gould

10 Jones & S. 119 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 5, 1877

The rule, by its terms, is expressly confined to contracts made at the board; but if parties to gold contracts, made outside of the board, choose to agree to be governed by, and to have them subject to the rules of the gold … He was at liberty to sell it unrestricted by any obligation to give notice to the defendant (Pollen v. Le Roy, 30 N. Y. 556 ; Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 Id. 78; Lewis v. Greider, 49 Barb. 635 ).

Caryl v. McElrath

3 Sandf. 176 · The Superior Court of New York City · Sep 29, 1849

We so held virtually, last year, in the case of Aspinwall v. Meyer, on a note indorsed by the same president in behalf of this company. … See Palmer v. Yates, ante, page 137.

Doyle v. Halpin

1 Jones & S. 352 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 3, 1871

Browne.” … I cite a few only that I deem to be in point upon the foregoing views expressed by me (Green v. Haines, 1 Hilton, 254 ; Jewell v. Schroeppel, 4 Cow. 564 ; Ladue v. Seymour Wood, 24 Wend. 60 ; Fleming v.

Mussinan v. Hatton

31 Abb. N. Cas. 254 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1894

The Code gives plaintiff an absolute right to amend his complaint once, subject to the right of the court to strike out for cause shown (Cooper v. Jones, 4 Sand. 699; Frank v. Bush, 63 How. Pr. 282 ). … Robertson, 9 Daly, 44 -52; Devine v. Duncan, 2 Abb. N. C. 328 ); but all the causes set forth in the amended complaint should be of the same class and of a class to which the summons is appropriate (Brown v.

Howard v. Smith

1 Jones & S. 124 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 4, 1871

In the case of Bolton v. Jacks, in this court (6 Robt. 198, &c.), there is a very full review of cases touching this point. My attention has been called to a late case decided in the court of appeals (Brown v. … Although there is a diversity of opinion among the judges before whom the case at bar has been heard, as to the questions arising therein, we do not consider the same as affected by the decision in Brown v. Nichols.

Parker Mills v. Jacot

8 Bosw. 161 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 20, 1861

In Williamson v. Brown, (15 N. Y. R., 354,) the different kinds of notice were much discussed. It was a case of an unrecorded mortgage and a subsequent grant. Mr. … Brown, (ut supra) is to the same effect.

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.

Henderson v. Jackson

2 Sweeny 324 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 30, 1870

Justice Emmott, in Brown v. Chadsey ( 39 Barb., 260 ). The distinction is recognized and inculcated by every elementary treatise on the common law. … Dolan, 7 Abb., 395 ; Brown v. Buckingham, 21 How., 192 ).