Case law

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.

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.

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.

Davidson v. Mayor of New York

2 Rob. 230 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 30, 1864

Bouton v. City of Brooklyn, ( 15 Barb. 375 ;) and Strong, J. in Dudley v. … In Morris v.

Whittaker v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R.

18 Abb. N. Cas. 11 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1886

As shown by me in McCabe v. Fogg ( 60 How. … (Browne), 44). Nor does section 66 apply only to actions on contract. It gives a lien in every action.

Smith v. B. Lynes & Thompson & Co.

3 Sandf. 203 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 6, 1849

In Lupin v. … They were, by his order, put on board a vessel, without the acceptances being given, and the same day were attached upon a debt owing by the purchaser. It was held that the vendor could not retain the goods. In Smith v.

Riemann v. German Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum

31 N.Y. St. Rep. 13 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 9, 1890

He is not keeping a house of his own, and, at the time these proceedings were instituted, was boarding with a family by the name of Grimm. It appears that Mr. … Mercein v. The People, 25 Wend., 64 ; Matter of Watson, 10 Abb. N.

Wyman v. Smith

2 Sandf. 331 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 24, 1849

In Berly v. … In Williams v.

Prentiss v. Bowden

70 N.Y. St. Rep. 517 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 24, 1895

Gaylord, 12 Wend. 236 ; Johnson v. Farrell, 10 Abb. Prac. 384; National Board of Underwriters v. National Bank of the Republic of New York, 146 N. Y. 64 ; 65 St. Rep. 755 , and that the one authorized by the remittitur. … Bennett v. Van Syckel, 18 N. Y. 481; Genet v. Davenport, 59 id. 648.

Hinckley v. Kreitz

4 Jones & S. 413 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 31, 1873

This case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (see Seacord v. Morgan, 3 Keyes, 638 ). Bennett v. Brown, (20 N. Y. R. 99) was, like Ball v. … Seacord v.

National Trust Co. v. Roberts

10 Jones & S. 100 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 2, 1877

The case is decided in 17 Mass. 513 , Commonwealth v. Green. … This decision was made before any special statute was passed, and was made upon common law principles (see Cole v. Cole, 50 How. Pr. 60 ).

Starin v. Kelly

4 Jones & S. 366 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 29, 1873

Albans v. … The cases cited above to the proposition ■ that a note received as security for or in payment of an antecedent debt is not given for a valúa *371 Tble consideration, were not intended to reverse Brown v. Leavitt ( 31 N.

Chamboret v. Cagney

10 Abb. Pr. 31 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 15, 1871

This point has been expressly decided by this court, at general term, in Xenia Bank v. Lee ( 3 Bosw., 694 ; S. C., 7 Abb. Pr., 372 ). See, also, to same effect, Brown v. Buckingham ( 11 Abb. Pr., 387 ; S. C., 31 How. … Pattison v.

Talcott v. Belding

4 Jones & S. 84 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 3, 1873

Peirce v. Van Dyke ( 6 Hill, 613 ), approving Barrett v. … Brown, 5 Lan sing, 78 ; Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348 -350). In Scofield v. Whitelegge ( 49 N.

Deming v. Puleston

3 Jones & S. 309 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 1, 1873

In McCall v. … He attended meetings of the board; he received the monthly statements of the plaintiff’s operations and services for the company up to May, 1866, and knew all about, approved, and aided in continuing his services. *313 He

Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.

16 N.Y. St. Rep. 583 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 26, 1888

In Brooks v. … In the case of Popfinger v. Yutte ( 102 N. Y., 42 ), a question similar to that here presented was considered carefully *585 by the court of appeals.

Leman v. Mayor

5 Bosw. 414 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 27, 1859

shall be assessed as provided in the 175th section of the act of April 9, 1813, entitled, *420 ‘ An act to reduce several laws relating particularly to the city of New York into one act.’ ” This statute has thus provided a Board … Howell v. The City of Buffalo, ( 15 N. Y., 512 ,) appears to govern it. In The Philadelphia and Wilmington Railroad Company v. Quigley, (21 How. U. S.

Cantoni v. Forster

67 N.Y. St. Rep. 345 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 6, 1895

And in support of this proposition he cites Baker v. Hawkins, 14 R. I. 359, which, on examination, will be found a well-considered case. In Deen v. Milne, 113 N. Y. 303 ; 22 St. … This question must be deemed to have been determined in Brown v. Gallaudet, 80 N.

Fulton Bank v. Benedict

1 Hall 480 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 15, 1829

Thus in the case of Waters v. … The People v. Mather.