Case law

Klein v. Klein

2 Jones & S. 48 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 30, 1871

This is an action for a separation from bed and board. By the common law a court- of equity had no jurisdiction to decree a separation or limited divorce (Perry v. Perry, 2 Paige, 501 ). … Nor do occasional outbursts of passion, from whatever cause, so long as they do not threaten bodily harm, present a ground for a limited divorce (Mason v. Mason, 1 Edw. 278 ).

Ansteth v. Buffalo Railway Co.

9 Misc. 419 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1894

It appears without conflict of evidence that plaintiff was a trespasser upon defendant’s car, and it may be assumed that he intended when he boarded the car to ride thereon until the conductor approached where he stood, and … Clark v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 40 Hun, 605 ; 113 N. Y. 670 ; McCann v. Sixth Ave. R. R. Co., 117 id. 505. As before observed, the finding of the jury upon this question is favorable to the plaintiff.

Kuh v. Barnett

57 Jones & S. 234 · The Superior Court of New York City · Aug 19, 1889

Martin v. Gross, 22 N. Y. State Rep. 439 ; also see 19 Ib. 56, 879. … Taylor v. Hatch, 12 Johns. 340 ; In re Cross, 2 Chan. Suit. 3 ; Anon, 4 How. 290 ; Bliss v. Molter, 58 How. 112 ; Murray v. Heffernan, 2 Law Bull. 67. We think the rule a good one.

Mayor of New York v. New York & Staten Island Ferry Co.

8 Jones & S. 300 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 3, 1876

Even parties simply hearing that an order for an injunction has been granted, and disregarding it, can be adjudged guilty of contempt (Hall v. Thomas, 3 Edw's. Chy. 236 ; People ex rel. Morrison v. … Brown, 4 Paige, 405 ; Osborne v Tannent, 14 Vesey, 136). Heither is the objection, that if there has been any breach of the injunction or any contempt, it has been waived, tenable.

Renard v. Sampson

2 Duer 285 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 2, 1853

In La Farge v. … In Creevy v.

Marsh v. Masterson

18 Jones & S. 187 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 3, 1884

And it is not enough that the property in controversy in both actions is the same (Dawley v. Brown, 79 N. Y. 398 ). … The case of Rice v. King ( 7 Johns. 20 ), cited in several cases down to Steinbach v. Relief Fire Ins. Co. ( 77 N.

Tooker v. Doane

2 Hall 532 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1829

In the case of M‘Neilly v. … In the case of Alsop and another v.

Speyers v. Lambert

6 Abb. Pr. 309 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1869

In Leonard v. … Brown (21 Id., 315 ), and then notice the frank admission of Chief Justice Comstock, in the last named case, that the decision of the case of Brewster v. Silence, which he had followed, with his associates, in Draper n.

Davies v. Cram

6 Sandf. 355 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 28, 1850

Under this exception, in Hart v. … He received the cotton on board at Mobile.

People ex rel. Allen v. Murray

50 N.Y. St. Rep. 535 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 19, 1893

Merwin v. Rogers, 24 St. Rep., 496 , and Horton v. Auchmoody, 7 Wend., 200, were actions, and not summary proceedings, and the-question involved related to the personal liability-of the justice. In Brown v. … In Boller v.

Wiggin v. Gans

6 Sandf. 646 · The Superior Court of New York City · Sep 20, 1851

Such was the rule under the former practice, (Benson v. Le Roy, 1 Paige, 122 ,) and it remains unaltered. … The rule continued in this form until the court of chancery was abolished. — See Benson v. Le Roy, 1 Paige, 122 .

Richards v. Mayor of New York

16 Jones & S. 315 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 19, 1882

The injured party would not be remediless on defendant’s theory, but this action would be against the Board or its members. It, or they, would necessarily employ counsel to defend. … In Maxmilian v. Mayor ( 62 N.

Marine Bank v. Vail

19 Bosw. 421 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 24, 1860

(Briggs v. Dorr, 19 J. R., 95; Ford v. Stuart, id., 342; Hastings v. McKinley, 1 E. D. Smith, 273; Savage v. Bevier, 12 How. Pr. … The cases of Snee v. Prescott, 1 Atk., 247; Anchor v. The Bank of England, Doug., 637; Treuttel v. Barandon, 8 Taunt., 100; Wilson v.

Vincent v. Sands

11 Abb. Pr. 366 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1871

Thus the members of successive boards of trustees may become liable for the same debts by reason of successive defaults (Boughton v. Otis, 21 N. Y., 261 ; Shaler and Hall Quary Co. v. Bliss, 27 N. … Pr., 470 ; Garrison v. Howe, 17 N. Y., 458 ; Miller v. White, 57 Barb., 504 ; S. C., 8 Abb. Pr. N. S., 46; Nimmons v. Hennion, 2 Sweeny, 663 ).

Williams v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

9 Abb. N. Cas. 419 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1881

The board shall fix the amount of increase necessary for the purpose aforesaid.” … In Howell v. Chicago & N. H. R.

Bonito v. Mosquera & Co.

2 Bosw. 401 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 6, 1858

Note; Navulshaw v. Brown rigg, 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 112; S. C. on appeal, 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 262; St. Leonards Chancellor.) VI. … Shipped on board Occidental, H. Banks, master, 48,750 feet white-pine boards and plank, for Albany. A. F. Potter.” The person who signed the paper was the son of B. A.

Kaatzenstin v. Western Assurance Co.

1 N.Y. St. Rep. 712 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 1, 1886

By the terms of the printed policy, the defendants agree to insure against loss goods laden on board vessel, boats, railroad or carriage at and from ports and places * * * for the several amounts and at the rates as herein … Chadsey v. Guion, 96 N. Y., 335 . The printed clauses in a policy are subject to restriction and modification by such as are written. Merchants’ Ins. Go. v. Mutual Ins. Co., 51 Supr. Ot. R., 455.

Wardlaw v. Mayor of New York

29 Jones & S. 174 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 2, 1892

. ££ There is no express authority given to the common council to appoint city surveyors, and if the board possesses any power upon the subject it is by implication only. … Sullivan v. Mayor, etc., 53 N. Y., 652; Costello v. Same, 63 Ib., 48.

Read & Hoppock v. Mutual Safety Insurance

3 Sandf. 54 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 30, 1849

(Smith v. Williams, 2 Caines’ Cas. in Error 110; 1 Phill. on Ins. 113.) The reason is obvious. … Although the insurers thus succeeded in Godsall v.

Klein v. Klein

11 Abb. Pr. 450 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1871

. * This is an action for separation from bed and board. By the common law a court of equity had no jurisdiction to decree a separation or limited divorce (Perry v. Perry, 2 Paige, 501 ). … Nor do occasional outbursts of passion, from whatever cause, so long as they do not threaten bodily harm, present a ground for a limited divorce (Mason v. Mason, 1 Edw., 278 ).