Case law

Chadsey v. Guion

14 Jones & S. 118 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 5, 1880

It decided that when the ship sank with the coffee on board, there was a total loss of the coffee. … Ins. 190; Waldens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 5 Johns. 325 ).

Campbell v. Parker

9 Bosw. 322 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 24, 1862

(Delamater v. Miller, 1 Cow., 75 ; Hall v. Robinson, 2 Comst., 293; Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill, 498 .) … In Green v.

Ulrich v. Ulrich

28 Jones & S. 237 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 11, 1892

Indeed, in cases of this character, the law does not imply a promise to pay for services rendered or for board and lodging furnished, but will presume that they were rendered and furnished gratuitously, and in order to overcome … Lyon v. Smith, 35 Hun, 275 ; Roblee v. Gallentine, 19 Week Dig., 153; Carpenter v. Weller, 15 Hun, 134 ; Updike v. Titus, 13 N. J. Eq., 152; Hall v. Finch, 19 Wisc., 278; Andrus v. Foster, 17 Vt., 560 ; Fitch v.

McHarg v. Eastman

4 Rob. 635 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 7, 1865

(Boughton v. Otis, ubi sup.) … A mere judgment is not such a debt; nor does the case of Garrison v. Howe, ( 17 N. Y. Rep. 458 ,) establish it to be so.

Zellweger v. Caffe

5 Duer 87 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1855

(Scarbury v. Hungerford, 2 Hill, 80 ; Hall v. Newcomb, 3 Hill, 233 ; Purser v. Luqueer, 4 Hill, 420 .) … (Dobbin v. Bradley, 17 Wend. 422 ; Birkhead v. Brown, 6 Hill, 634 .) But that is not this case, and it is needless to speculate upon the supposed cases.

Lewison v. Hoffman

60 N.Y. St. Rep. 582 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1894

Bissell v. Sax ton., 66 N. Y. 55 ; Shattuck v. Lamb, 65 N. Y. 499 ; Board v. Bris tol, 15 Hun, 116 ; aff’d 99 N. Y. 316 . … Illustrations of the effect given to the rule in different cases will be found in Bank v. Smith, 12 Allen, 243 ; State v. Newton, 33 Ark. 276 ; McKim v. Blake, 139 Mass. R. 598 ; Pendleton v. Bank , 1 T. B.

Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co. v. Barnes

7 Jones & S. 40 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 1, 1875

Rightmere, 20 Johns. 366 ; Douglass v. Howland, 24 Wend. 36 ; Smith v. Dann, 6 Hill, 544 ; Sterns v. Marks, 35 Barb. 565 ; Heebner v. Townsend, 8 Abb. 238 ; East River Bank v. Rogers, 7 Bosw. 493 ; Brown v. … It was for this reason, that in Burgess v. Eve. (Law Rep., 13 Eq. 150), Malins, V.

New York Marbled Iron Works v. Smith

11 Duer 362 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 3, 1855

(Marston v. … There can be no error in such an exercise of discretion, that an Appellate Court has power to correct. ( 15 Wend. 669 ; 4 Hill, 189 ; 1 Comst. 290; Brown v. McCure, 5 Sand. 220.)

Reiff v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

17 Jones & S. 441 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 27, 1883

Bnt it is for the law-making power of a state to define what public policy upon a given point shall be, and, as shown by me in Williams v. … That the lease was duly ratified and approved by a three-fifths vote of the board of directors of the Western Union Co. fully appears.

McKee v. Rapp

69 N.Y. St. Rep. 291 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1895

Wheeler v. Schofield, 67 N. Y. 311 . … As matter of fact, it was substantially finished by that time; the respective board of trustees having, as above shown stepped in, and completed Rapp’s contracts.

Birdsall v. Russell

1 Rob. 538 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 26, 1863

Delafield, 8 Paige, 527 ; Gould v. The Town of Venice, 29 Barb. 452 ; Mor. Can. and Banking Co. v. Fisher, 3 Am. Law Reg. 423 ; White v. Vermont and Mass. R. R. Co., 21 How. U. S. R. 525 ; Mechanics’ Bank v. N. H. R. R. … (Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. Rep. 354 . Tuttle v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 213 . Ayer v. Hutchins, 4 Mass. R. 370 . Cone v. Baldwin, 12 Pick. 545 . Grant v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1516. Peacock v. Rhodes, 2 Doug. 633 . Fowler v.

Fogal v. Pirro

17 Abb. Pr. 113 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1860

Brown, 7 Cush., 220 ; Adams Eq., 9 ed., 315 ; Balch a. Onion, 4 Cush., 559 ; Parkist a. Alexander, 1 Johns. Ch., 394 ; 3 P. Wms., 131, n.; 1 Story's Eq. Jur., 469, § 439.) XII. … V. Most of the exceptions arising on questions to the witnesses are rendered immaterial by the decree being adverse to the plaintiffs, Provoost, Tyte, and Day. (Walker a. Dunspaugh, 20 N. Y., 170 .) VI.

Damziger v. Boyd

21 Jones & S. 398 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 10, 1886

The ground of this rule and its proper application appear in the opinion in Baldwin v. Brown ( 16 N. … Power, 6 Hill, 453 ; Wendell v. People, 5 Wend. 189 ; Loomis v. Jackson, 19 John. 449 ). It was said in Robinson v. Kime ( 70 N.

Demott v. McMullen

8 Abb. Pr. 335 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1869

that, under.the acts of 1848 and 1849, the courts at all times were cautious and guarded in their action, and scrupulously protected the rights of married women as to their estates, even against their own acts (see Coakley v. … These findings tend to show, as the evidence in the case conclusively does, that it was the husband who kept the house; if the purchases were made by the wife as the agent of the husband, the payment of board to the wife

Schwartz v. Allen

24 N.Y. St. Rep. 912 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 12, 1889

I will only refer to Redfield v. Stitt (10 N. Y. State Rep., 366); Vaughn v. Strong (22 N. Y. State Rep., 369); Tilson v. Terwilliger ( 56 N. Y., 273 ); Lowery v. Erskine (21 N. Y. State Rep., 922, 923). … Y., 578 ; Waggoner v. Brown, 8 How. Pr., 112 ; Kingsland v. Cowman, 5 Hill, 610 .

St. Nicholas National Bank v. Savery

13 Jones & S. 97 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 3, 1879

Brown, 16 Wend. 505 ). … To the same effect are Laverty v. Burr ( 1 Wend. 529 ); Bank of Rochester v. Bowen (7 Id. 159); Boyd v. Plum (Id. 309). In Stall v.

Weed v. Panama Railroad

5 Duer 193 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1856

*196 In Vanderbilt v. … Wright v.

Caro v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.

14 Jones & S. 138 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 5, 1880

In the case of Hay v. Cohoes Co. ( 2 N. Y. 159 ), this question was considered. … The defendant in the case of Hay v. Cohoes Co. ( 2 N.

Green v. Wood

6 Abb. Pr. 277 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1858

Justice Roosevelt, in Bleecker v. Carroll (2 Abbotts’ Pr. … Brown (5 Abbotts’ Pr. R., 418), in which case Mr. Justice Roosevelt, to some extent, qualified the opinion he had expressed in Bleecker a. Carroll, supra.

Gilbert v. Beach

5 Bosw. 445 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 10, 1859

Until the principle stated in Blake v. Ferris, (supra;) Stevens v. Armstrong (2 Seld., 435;) Pack v. The Mayor, (4 id., 222;) Kelly v. The Mayor, (1 Kern., 432,) and Storrs v. … This was decided in Bush v.