Case law

Syckels v. Perry

3 Rob. 621 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1864

In the case of Davis v. … In Wright v.

Hope Mutual Life Insurance v. Perkins

4 Rob. 182 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 15, 1867

This, we think, is settled by the principles laid down in the case of White v. Haight, ( 16 N. Y. … (Brown v. Crooke, 4 N. Y. Rep. 51 .) It is true, this was for the benefit of a third party, but this makes no difference, (Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y.

Belmont Branch v. Hoge

7 Bosw. 543 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 9, 1861

I consider the question of the notice which is to destroy lonafides in a purchase, as governed by the cases of Pringle v. Phillips, (5 Sandf. R. 157,) and Williamson v. Brown, (15 N. Y. … And in Williamson v. Brown (15 N. Y.

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.

Adams v. McCann

27 Jones & S. 59 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 5, 1891

Fairchild v. Lynch, 42 N. Y. Supr. 265; Steinberger v. McGovern, 56 N. Y. 12 ; Hale v. Omaha National Bank, 49 Ib. 629; Stevens v. … Brown v. Houck, 2 N. Y. St. Rep. 194, 196. And in Denton v.

Wotherspoon v. Wotherspoon

17 Jones & S. 152 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 9, 1883

This account must be regarded as conclusive and binding on the defendant (Harley v. Eleventh Ward Bank, 76 N. Y. 618 ). … As to the claim set up on the part of defendant by way of counter-claim, on account of board, &c., of the testator, it was properly disallowed.

Weitkamp v. Loehr

21 Jones & S. 79 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 1, 1886

During the absence of his wife and family in Milwaukee, the defendant, on his occasional returns to New York from his journeys, had no permanent dwelling in this state, but stayed temporarily in boarding-houses in Brooklyn … The meaning of the word resident, as used in section 1763 of the Code, was discussed in De Meli v.

Clark v. Griffith

2 Bosw. 558 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 6, 1858

(Loyd v. Fox, 1 E. D. Smith, 101; Brown v. Colie, 1 E. D. Smith, 265.) … (Hull v. Carnley, 1 Kern. 501; 17 N. Y. Rep. 202 ; Manning v. Monaghan, 1 Bosw. R. p. 467, note.)

Fowler v. Butterly

12 Jones & S. 148 · The Superior Court of New York City · Aug 1, 1878

In cases of choses in action actual delivery is not always necessary In Scott v. Sims ( 10 Bosw. 314 ; Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. 288 ), and in Sanford v. Sanford ( 45 N. … Brown, 68 N. Y. 362 ; Garnsey v. Rogers, 47 N.

Ward v. Central Park, North & East River Railroad

1 Jones & S. 392 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 1, 1871

In Clark v. Eighth-avenue R. R. Co., 36 N. … Thus, in Hardencamp v. The Second-avenue E. E.

Wood v. Rabe

20 Jones & S. 479 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 7, 1885

That in all such cases, the tender must be kept good by the payment of the money into court, is also the law of this state (Simpson v. French, 25 How. Pr. 464 ; Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wend. 341 ; Brown v. … Thus, in Roosevelt v.

Walter v. Post

4 Abb. Pr. 382 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 15, 1857

John v. … (See Fink v. Brown, 13 Wend., 601 ; Fitch v. Livingston, 4 Sandf., 514 ; Wilkes v. The Hungerford Market Company, 2 Bing. N. C., 281; Iverson v. Moore, 1 Lord Raym., 486 ; La Cour v. The Mayor, &c., 3 Duer, 406 .)

Gilbert v. Third Avenue Railway Co.

22 Jones & S. 270 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 14, 1887

As was said in Eppendorf v. The B. C. & N. R. R. Co., 69 N. … Quimby v. Strauss, 90 N. Y. 664 . And a general objection is insufficient to make an objection that the answer called for an opinion of the witness, available. Merritt v. Briggs, 57 N. Y. 651 .

Culliford v. Gadd

28 Jones & S. 343 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 29, 1892

See Aldridge v. Aldridge, 120 N. Y., 614 ; Murphy v. Board of Education, 53 Hun, 171 ; Harkness v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 55 N. Y. Super. Ct., 532. … See Raymond v. Howland, 12 Wend., 176 ; Allen v. Addington, 7 Ib., 9.

Woodruff v. Beekman

11 Jones & S. 282 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 14, 1878

In the form in which it is presented by the case, this exception is not tenable (Ayrault v. Pacific Bank, 47 N. Y. 576 ). … The defendant testified that after the boards were removed, the lathing was sawed off, and that the portion sawed off and the plaster, as it came down, was received by his men, who stood on boxes below, thus making very much

Patrick v. Metcalf

9 Bosw. 483 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 11, 1862

Co. v. Kerr, 17 Barb., 581 ; Swift v. Kingsley, 24 Id., 541.) … It may, however, be noticed that neither the case of Munsell v. Lewis, ( 2 Den., 224 ,) nor Bradley v. Root, (5 Paige Ch.

Robbins v. Mount

4 Rob. 553 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 1, 1867

(Jennings v. Rundall, 8 T. R. 335. Hunger v. … If I have succeeded, then it follows, that they are liable only for negligence, and such, I understand to be the dictum in Eakin v. Brown, (1 E. D.

Pullutro v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

39 N.Y. St. Rep. 293 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 10, 1891

Pullutro v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 7 N. Y. … The evidence upon the new trial is essentially changed, and just how the injury was inflicted has ceased to be a disputed question of fact The plaintiff testifies that when he boarded the train he went between the cars, placed

Burr v. Wilcox

19 Bosw. 198 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 10, 1860

Brown, 1 Kern., 148; Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb., 210 ; Stebbins v. Phenix Fire Ins. Co., 3 Paige, 350 ; Adderly v. … (Tracy v. Yates, 18 Barb., 152 .)

Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow

41 Jones & S. 220 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 1, 1876

The debt for these locks delivered under the contract, subsequent to its execution, can not be said to have been contracted *222 when the agreement was signed (Garrison v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 465 ). … action by the stockholders was on the next day filed in the county clerk’s office, and on the same day the trustees met, and voted that the new stock so authorized should not be issued, without the further order of the board