Case law

Brown v. Brown

31 How. Pr. 481 · The Superior Court of New York City · Sep 15, 1865

Brown v. Ward

9 How. Pr. 497 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1854

The pledgee then caused the stock to be offered at the board of brokers, where he offered it at the rate of fifty-three per cent., which he could not get. … Hamilton in the superior court, and others, were referred to as deciding that a sale at the board of brokers of stock pledged could not be made without an express stipulation to that effect; and that a sale to be valid must

Brown v. McCune

5 Sandf. 224 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1851

We believe the law remains as it was laid down in Johnson v. Pie, 1 Kel. 905 and 913 (S. … It is stated in that case that the same point was held the previous term, in the case of Grove v. Nevil.

Brown v. Brown

4 Rob. 688 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 30, 1866

(Van Dyne v. Thayre, 19 Wend. 162 . *701 Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95 . Balter v. Chase, 6 id. 482. Runyan v. Stewart, 12 Barb. 537 .) … Bank of Utica v. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 399 . Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Caine’s Cas. 1. Truscott v. King, 6 N. Y. Rep. 147 .)

Brown v. Richardson

7 Rob. 57 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1868

Brown, or order, at different dates, on demand. C. L. Brown indorsed the notes in this action to his brother, the plaintiff. … Brown voluntarily received the $3340.14, from Woods, when there was no obligation upon him so to do.

Birckhead v. Brown

5 Sandf. 134 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 28, 1851

The cases in our own courts, and particularly Gardiner v. Buchbee ( 3 Cow. 120 ), Burt v. Sternbugh ( 4 Cow. 559 ), and Bouchaud v. Diaz ( 3 Denio 238 ), entirely correspond with those that have been quoted. Gardiner v. … (Miller v. Marnice, 6 Hill 122 .)

Brown v. Platt

8 Bosw. 324 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 22, 1861

(Edgell v. Hart, 9 N. Y. R., 216 ; Gardner v. McEwen, 19 N. Y. R., 126 ; Williston v. Jones, 6 Duer, 504 ; Marston v. Vultee, 12 Abb. Pr. R., 143.) The language of the mortgage is not altogether consistent with itself.

Brown v. Windmuller

3 Jones & S. 567 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 4, 1873

Brown v. Bradshaw

1 Duer 199 · The Superior Court of New York City · Oct 30, 1852

McNulty, “ Bought of Brown & Corning, “ Wholesale and Retail “ Dealers in Lumber. “Terms Cash.” … He said he would pay the men that day, and asked if there were any other bills on the buildings, except those for which he was accountable, mentioning that of Brown & Corning, and he. said those would 'be paid to-morrow.

Brown v. Burlingham

5 Sandf. 418 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 28, 1852

that from a father to a son, and, in an elaborate judgment, the court of appeals has recently determined that this doctrine is not confined to.brothers and sisters, but extends to and embraces their descendants (McGregor v.

Hewlett v. Brown

7 Abb. Pr. 74 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1858

Smith v. Brown

1 Duer 665 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 3, 1853

Squires v. Brown

22 How. Pr. 35 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 20, 1861

There was, therefore, error in rejecting proof that the *47 defendant Brown resigned his office of trustee before the first of December, 1856. … There must be a reversal of the judgment as to the defendant Brown, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Corp v. Brown

2 Sandf. 293 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 30, 1848

Brown v. Cooper

65 How. Pr. 126 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 15, 1883

Brown v. Jenison

3 Sandf. 732 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 12, 1851

Brown v. Wilmerding

5 Duer 220 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1856

Brown v. Richardson

1 Bosw. 402 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 27, 1857

See Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y. R. 435.

Kinkaid v. Kipp & Brown

1 Duer 692 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 15, 1853

the complaint does not appear on this motion; hut the defendants answered jointly and severally, that they were at and during the times mentioned in the complaint, owners-of a line of stages or omnibuses, known as Kipp & Brown … The verification is as follows : “Solomon-Kipp and Abraham Brown, being severally duly sworn, say, each for himself, that the foregoing answer is true of his own knowledge, except so far as the same alleges a want of sufficient

Longden v. Brown

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 338 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1885

On receiving this, defendant’s attorney took an order to show cause why plaintiffs should not give a further bill of particulars specifying thereon the number of each piece of goods sold to the firm of Lowry & Brown.