Case law

Kirkland v. Leary

2 Sweeny 677 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1871

The action was for the breach of a contract to carry from Charleston to New York ninety-one bales of cotton on board the steamship Granada. … After the decision in this court, the Supreme Court in the seventh district, in Kent v. Hudson R. R. R. Co. ( 22 Barb., 278 ), in effect overruled Wibert v. N. Y. and E. R. R. Co.

Dyer v. Forest

2 Abb. Pr. 282 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1855

A delivery in pursuance of the order, whether at the store of a factor, on board of a vessel, or to the purchaser himself, is a compliance with the order, and is an acceptance on the part of the purchaser, which, whether … (Outwater v. Dodge, 6 Wend. 397 ). I do not see any ground upon which the judgment can be reversed. Judgment affirmed with costs.

Blackstock v. New York & Erie Railroad

1 Bosw. 77 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 11, 1857

In Parsons v. … (Brown v. Colie, 1E. D. Smith, 270.)

Stanton v. Small

3 Sandf. 230 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 20, 1849

In Jewett v. … In Pleasants v.

Hoyt v. Hoyt

8 Bosw. 511 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 5, 1861

(Cross on Lien, 65 ; Falkener v. Case, 1 Brown Ch. C., 125.) … Tillinghast , as well as those of Stalker v. McDonald, ( 6 Hill, 93 ;) Coddington v. Bay, (20 J. R., 637 ;) The Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville et al., ( 24 Wend., 115 ;) and Bank of Salina v.

Douglas v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance

13 Jones & S. 313 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 13, 1879

Thus, in Hathaway v. Trenton Mutual Life & Fire Ins. Co (11 Cush. … In Nightingale v. State Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Worcester (5 R.

Baker v. Johnson

2 Rob. 570 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1864

on board of vessel under the tax law, from the 20fch to the 31st of August, 1862, duty paid. … (Jones v. Judd, 4, Comst. 411.) But I am not aware of any case, where there was no physical impossibility to perform, that it has been held that the party was excused.

Hills v. Lynch

3 Rob. 42 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1864

(People *56 v. Haynes, supra. Waldron v. Romaine, 22 N. Y. Rep. 368 .) … In Le Ray De Chaumout v.

Chaine v. Wilson

1 Bosw. 673 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 18, 1858

We held, in the case of Barry v. … In Hew Jersey was his house, his shelter, his fireside, his bed and board.

Burleigh v. Center

41 Jones & S. 441 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 20, 1876

See also Bradford v. Brownjohn, Law Rep. 8 Chan. App. 711; Cox v. Cox, Law Rep. 8 Equity, 343; Allhusen v. Whittell, Law Rep. 4 Equity, 295. … When chargeable to the principal, they are deducted from it, and in that way the burden is equitable apportioned among all parties (Brown v. Brown, 41 N. Y. 515 ).

Hudson v. Smith

7 Jones & S. 452 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 7, 1875

Thus in Oatram v. … One or two citations are sufficient for the principle. *461 In Doty v. Brown ( 4 N.

Bowdoin v. Coleman

3 Abb. Pr. 431 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1856

In Brown v. Cole (1 E. D. Smith's C. P. … Engs v. Donnithorne, (2 Burr., 1190;) Sorsbie v. Park, (12 Mees & W, 146;) Knightly v. Watson, (3 Exch. R., 716;) (Shepard’s Touchstone, by Preston, 166;) Ehle v. Purdey, ( 6 Wend., 629 ;) Dean v.

Palmer v. Saft

21 N.Y. St. Rep. 478 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 7, 1889

of Hovember, 1860, and that she went into actual possession of the premises and lived there some time in December, 1860; that on the east side of the lot, between it and Ho. 68 (plaintiff’s property), was a wood fence, a board … In the case of Paige v. Warington ( 103 N. Y., 636 ; 2 N.

Granger v. Lyman

39 N.Y. St. Rep. 288 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 10, 1891

In Knapp v. McGowan, 96 N. … Brown v. Guthrie, 110 N. Y., 441 ; 18 N. Y. State Rep., 311. Counsel for plaintiff relies upon White v. Cotzhausen, 129 U. S., 329 .

Jennings v. Jennings

5 Sandf. 174 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 21, 1851

The authorities applicable to this, case, besides Hawley v. James, are Thompson v. Carmichael’s Executors, 1 Sand. Chy. R. 387; McSorley v. McSorley’s Executors 4 ibid. 414; McSorley v. Wilson, 4 ibid. 515: Field v. … Field’s Executors, 4 ibid. 528; Boynton v. Hoyt, 1 Denio 53 ; and Vail v. Vail, 7 Barb. S. C. R. 226.

Phœnix v. Commissioners of Emigration

1 Abb. Pr. 466 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1855

In Rex. v. … (Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick., 184 ; Van Wormer v. The Mayor of Albany, 15 Wendell, 262 ).

Ryan v. Mayor

10 Jones & S. 202 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 5, 1877

Plaintiff’s claim to compensation rests upon his appointment by the board of supervisors, his recognition as such appointee by the judges of the court, and the rendition of services in pursuance thereof. … Pr..91), upon the authority of Brennan v. Mayor, &c. ( 62 N.

Strasser v. Moonelis

23 Jones & S. 197 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 3, 1888

See also Brown on Trade-marks, 2d ed., § 537, § 60; Peitz y. Eichele, 62 Mo. 171 ; Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84; Congress and Empire Spring Co. y. … Brown, 3 Kay & Johnson, 423 ; s. c., 3 Jurist N. 8. 929 ; Leather Cloth Co. v. Amer. L. C. Co., 11 Lb. 513; s. c., 35 L. *205 J. Chan. 53; s. c., 4 De Gex, Jones & Smith, 137; Blanchard v. Hill, 2 Atkyn’s R. 484. III.

Strusburgh v. Mayor of New York

13 Jones & S. 508 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 1, 1879

By the body or board that made the assessment upon a hearing of objections thereto ; 2. By the court, on certiorari; and, 3. … Newman v. Supervisors of Livingston Co. ( 45 N. Y. *512 676 ) and Chapman v. City of Brooklyn (40 Id. 372), do not establish a contrary doctrine.

Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. Place

11 Duer 212 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 21, 1855

In Williams v. Bank of the United States, ( 2 Peters, 96 ,) the action was against an endorser. … In The Bank of the United States v. Hatch, ( 6 Peters, 256 ,) a notice served on a fellow boarder at the lodging house of the party, he being absent, was held a legal notice. In Goldsmid v.