Case law

Williams v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

16 Jones & S. 349 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 6, 1882

Y. 325 ; Leitch v. Wells, 48 Id. 585 ; Grymes v. Hone, 49 Id. 17 ; Johnson v. Underhill, 52 Id. 203 ; Driscoll v. West, Bradley & Carey Manufacturing Co., 59 Id. 96; Cushman v. … Y. 548 , the court of appeals unanimously held that there was no authority in the board of directors to declare that a dividend of the cash profits should be paid in depreciated bank notes. In Scott v. Central R.

Griggs v. Day

26 Jones & S. 385 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 1, 1890

On April 19, 1883, there was a meeting of the board of trustees of the company. … Smith v. Miller, 43 N. Y. 174 , citing Southwick v. Sax, 9 Wend. 122 ; Hawks v. Hinchcliff, 17 Barb. 492 ; Gage v. Punchard, 6 Daly, 229 .

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

Solarz v. Manhattan Railway Co.

31 Abb. N. Cas. 426 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1894

The plaintiff reported as *427 requested, and, following the foreman’s direction, ascended a scaffolding which the defendant had erected, some twenty feet or more in height; while working there one of the central boards broke … Co. v. Frawley, 110 Id. 18; H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Rider, 62 Tex. 267 ; Schmid v. Humphreys, 48 Iowa, 652 ; Baldwin v. Barney, 12 R. I. 392; Black v. Town of Lewiston, 13 Pac. Rep. 80 ; Sharp v.

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 .

Davison v. Seymour

1 Bosw. 88 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 11, 1857

To the Board he was unknown. … The authorities cited in Gray v. Hook, especially Fuller v.

Haskins v. Kelly

1 Abb. Pr. 63 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 15, 1863

Y., 392 ; M’Lean v. Walker, 10 Johns., 471 ; Garlick v. James, 12 Id., 146; White v. Platt, 5 Den., 269 ). When so received, without special authority the pledgee cannot sell them (Wheeler v. … .; see Brown v. Ward, 3 Duer, 660 ), or compromise them (Garland v. James, ubi sup.); he can only wait till they mature and collect them (Wheeler v. Newland, ubi sup.)

Gram v. Seton

1 Hall 262 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1828

In these cases of Randall v. Van Vechten and Skinner v. … The cases of Ludlow v. Simond, Mackay v. Bloodgood, and White v.

Exchange Fire Insurance v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

10 Bosw. 180 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 24, 1863

(Townsend v. The President, &c., of the Susquehannah Turnpike Co., 6 Johns., 90 ; Wilson v. The Same, 21 Barb., 68 . See, also, The Mayor, &c., v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433 ; and Ireland v. … (Lancaster Canal Co. v. Parnaby, 11 Ad. & El., 223; Townsend v. Susquehannah Turnpike Co., 6 Johns., 90 ; Wilson v. Same, 21 Barb., 68, 78 ; Adsit v. Brady, 4 Hill, 630 ; Harris v. Baker, 4 Maule & S., 27.)

Talcott v. Levy

29 Abb. N. Cas. 3 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1892

In Hildeburn v. Brown ( 17 B. … Y. 73 ; Kennedy v. Barandors, 4 Hun, 642 ; Union Nat. Bank v. Warner, 12 Id. 306; Belgard v. McLaughlin, 9 State Rep. 38). Submit findings and decree.

Ward v. Central Park

11 Abb. Pr. 411 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1871

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

Union India Rubber Co. v. Babcock

1 Abb. Pr. 262 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1854

In Hosack v. … (Nellis v. De Forest, 6 How. Pr. R. 413; Mitchell v. Westervelt, Ibid. 265 ; Burnside v. Brown, 6 District, Jan uary, 1852, cited 6 How. Pr. R. 415 ; Echerson v. Spoor, 4 How. Pr. R. 361; Morrison v. Ide, Ibid. 304 ).

Ulrich v. Ulrich

17 N.Y. St. Rep. 414 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 13, 1888

.; Frederick v. Frederick, 1 P. Wms., 710; Coman v. Lakey, 80 N. Y., 345 ; Ray v. Adams, 4 Hun, 332 ; Burdick v. Jackson, 7 id., 488; Perry v. Board of Missions, etc., of Albany, 102 N. Y., 99 ; 1 N. Y. State Rep., 169. … The cases respecting an instantaneous seizin by the husband do not aid our inquiry (Mills v. Van Voorhies, 20 N.

Bartow v. Draper

5 Duer 130 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1855

(City of Cincinnati v. White's Lessees, 6 Peters, 133 ; Board of Trustees v. Havens, 11 Illinois, 534; Hunter v. Middleton, 13 Illinois, 50; Doe v. Jones, 11 Alabama, 63; Ch. Justice Jones in Drake v. … In The Board of Trustees v.

Kent v. Woodhull

23 Jones & S. 311 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 3, 1888

During the same time there existed in the city of New York an organization knoAvn as the New York Produce Exchange, and in the city of Chicago an organization knoAvn as the Chicago Board of Trade. … In the later case of Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U. S. R. 671 , the question as to the sufficiency of the substitution claimed, came directly before the court.

Harbeck v. Craft

11 Duer 122 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 23, 1854

—(Moule v. Brown, 4 Bing., N. C. 268, 5 Scott, 694, 2 Taunt. 388, 2 Camp. 539, 10 Wend. 304 ; Mohawh Bank v. Broderick, 13 Wend. 133 .) … Vide, also Etting v. Brinkerhoff, ( 2 Hall, 465 ,) and Little v. Phœnix Bank, (2. Hill. 426.)

People v. Gaffney

14 Abb. Pr. 36 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 15, 1872

¡Neither justice nor a proper exercise of humanity, .even in a capital case, demands such a determination (Willis v. People, 5 Park. Cr., 647 ). In People v. … Pr., 85 ; People v. Carnal, 1 Park. Cr., 256 ; Taylor v. Everett, 2 How. Pr., 23 ; Baker v. Simmons, 29 Barb., 128 ).

Third National Bank of Buffalo v. Guenther

17 N.Y. St. Rep. 403 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 13, 1888

Knapp v. Smith, 27 N. Y., 277 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 id., 343 ; Owen v. Cawley, 36 id., 600; Baum v. Mullen, 47 id., 577. … Brown. v. Goodwin, 75 N. Y., 409 ; Royce v, Watrous, 73 id., 597. It does not appear that the acts of Cook & Co. have in any manner changed the status of the parties by misleading them or otherwise.

Wheeler v. Morris

2 Bosw. 524 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 6, 1858

(Hitchcock v. Har rington,, 6 J. R. 290; Collins v. Torrey, 7 Ib. 278; Coles v. Coles, 15 Id. 819; Lane v. Shears, 1 Wend. 437 , and cases cited.) … Justice Brown concurred. The reasons given in those cases seem to us to be conclusive on the point. (See cases above cited.)

Bell v. Sun Printing & Publishing Co.

10 Jones & S. 567 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 26, 1877

Warren, Clerk of the Board of Education, and hurriedly indorsed for dismissal a list furnished by a bureau officer. It included Miss Maggie Warren, a sister of Dr. … The law looks only to the identity of the individual (Doe v. Yates, 5 Barn. & Ald. 534; Waterbury v. Mather, 16 Wend. 611 ). It often occurs that a person is as well known by one name as another.