Case law

Bird v. Hayden

2 Abb. Pr. 61 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 15, 1863

The company is invested with a qualified corporate capacity, but no immunity or exemption from personal liability for the debts of the company is conferred upon the stockholders. … The distinction between the original liability of stockholders, and such as attaches to officers for neglect of duty, is clearly drawn, and constantly kept in view in the case referred to; and *67 it is held that in the former

Ring v. Franklin

2 Hall 1 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1829

The deed is treated with all the respect and deference which can consist with a just regard to the protection of the borrower, and the extrinsic evidence is not received to qualify the deed, but to establish the fact of the … As the case then stood, there was, clearly, no ground for the objection, and it was properly overruled.

Bagley v. Peddie

5 Sandf. 192 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 8, 1851

Among the principles, that appear to be well established, are these :— 1. … We think that some of these covenants are clearly certain in their nature, and that the damages for their breach may be readily ascertained by a jury.

Lysaght v. Phillips

5 Duer 106 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1855

At all events, the finding of the referee is not so clearly against the evidence as to warrant us in disturbing it on this account. Second. … has undergone ranch discussion in England, where they appear to have become a favorite, as they certainly seem to be, a very wise and beneficent mode of administering the estates of insolvents; but the result has been, clearly

Mayor of New York v. New York & Staten Island Ferry Co.

8 Jones & S. 232 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 3, 1876

Dongan’s charter (1686) was a general grant of liberties, privileges, franchises, rights, royalties, free customs, jurisdictions, and immunities, with a special confirmation of one ferry which had then been established. … There is also (§40) a covenant to the mayor, &c., and their successors, of quiet and peaceable enjoyment of all the granted privileges, immunities, and franchises.

Attorney General v. Mayor

3 Duer 119 · The Superior Court of New York City · Feb 25, 1854

A franchise has been defined to be “ a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot legally be exercised without legislative grant. … This would seem to be clearly prohibited by the provisions of the amended charter above referred to.

McHarg v. Eastman

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

Nothing shows more clearly the absurdity of the provision when attempted to be construed literally, and the necessity of interpreting it according to the purpose of the statute and the ends of justice. … Rep. 458 ,) establish it to be so. It is true it speaks of debts existing during a subsequent default, but that is to be understood of debts contracted by the same trustees and continuing for over a year.

Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.

24 Jones & S. 108 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 20, 1888

On the motion below it appeared clearly, that the plaintiff was a non-resident of this state; that the defendant was a foreign corporation ; and that the cause of action did not arise within this state. … Any supposed neglect of a state to establish courts of sufficient jurisdiction cannot be remedied by the action of a judge or court. The case of Popfinger v. Yutte, 102 N.

Caldwell v. Bartlett

3 Duer 341 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 20, 1854

If the sale was conditional, but the goods were delivered unconditionally, the title vested in Reed on the delivery, so' that he could clearly confer title on a purchaser in good faith.. . *353 If Reed took the goods as a … When the- delivery is absolute, without any contemporaneous declaration qualifying it, the- &mis of proving the condition rests upon the vendor.

Delonguemare v. Tradesmen's Insurance

2 Hall 589 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1829

to descriptions or expressions contained in other documents to which the policy may refer; and such an extension of the rule would, I think, be unwarrantable, unless the reference to the collateral writing be such as to clearly … It appears clearly, that at the time of the fire, there was one carpenter in the building. He had a work bench in one of the rooms, with some tools ; but was not then employed in erecting or repairing the buildings.

Corrigan v. Coney Island Jockey Club

27 Abb. N. Cas. 294 · The Superior Court of New York City · Aug 15, 1891

The plaintiff bought the colt April 25, 1890, as “ eligible to the futurity race,’’ which means “ legally qualified to enter into it.” … To this extent the plaintifFs right to equitable relief is clearly established. An injunction will be granted to carry into effect these views.

Lacour v. Mayor

3 Duer 406 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 27, 1854

amenable to an individual in a civil action for the exercise, or the refusal or neglect to exercise the duty, but the moment the duty ceases to be of this character, which it does when the election to perform it, is made, this immunity … C. 261, to wit: the profits which the plaintiff might have made in carrying on his business on the premises which he had leased, had the lessor not refused to give him possession; and especially where such profits are established

Hull v. Carnley

2 Duer 99 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 26, 1853

It is this doctrine, therefore, that we must now consider as established, and so far from thinking that goods covered by a mortgage can be justly excepted from its operation, we are clearly of opinion that it is to the relation … Obs. 54). bn Such a case, it may be justly regarded as the established law.

Mott v. Union Bank

8 Bosw. 591 · The Superior Court of New York City · Nov 30, 1861

by which any absolute liability is either confessed or established. … Whatever embarassments may be thought to attend the question, it cannot well be said that that Court has clearly erred.

Hunt v. Hudson River Fire Insurance

2 Duer 481 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 10, 1853

But, if the view above taken should be erroneous, we consider, next, that the complaint is fully sustained by the rules of pleading established in the Code. … We regard the decision rejecting it as clearly correct. The conclusion is, that the appeal must he dismissed, and the judgment he affirmed, with costs.

Scott v. Lilienthal

9 Bosw. 224 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 15, 1862

This evidence established his competency to testify. The value of his opinion was a question for the Jury. … Seymour and David Rait, which I consider clearly incompetent.

Earle v. Earle

16 Jones & S. 18 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 5, 1881

The trust, therefore, attached to their office and not merely to their persons, and they not only proved the will, but qualified and acted under it. … But this exemption from liability exists only when it is made to appear that the default of one occurred in spite of the exercise of the requisite care and diligence by those who seek immunity.

Towle v. Palmer

1 Abb. Pr. 81 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 15, 1863

The well known mode, in a statute, of restraining, or qualifying a right previously granted by a proviso, cannot be used to extend one, particularly when it immediately succeeds the grant intended to be restrained or qualified … Their possession has been under the grant, with no claim of title which is not qualified by these provisions.

Talcott v. Belding

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

So much so, that it would be difficult to enforce by execution a judgment establishing the right of property and premium to specific personal chattel. This action is to some extent of the nature of a proceeding in rem. … Its want of certainty defeats the recital in the undertaking from operating as an absolute estoppel; and it being clearly the plaintiff’s statement, and not the defendant’s, except by a qualified and enforced adoption, with

Stettiner v. Granite Insurance

5 Duer 594 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1856

The attestation clause imports that it was signed by the president and secretary, at the office of the defendants, in Utica, and its effect is qualified by the words “ not valid unless' countersigned by J. W. … But we are referred to no case, and I find none in which it is held, that where, the plaintiff’s case is prima, facie established, it is matter of exception, that though the defence seems clearly proved, the Judge submits