Case law

Wirt v. Brown

30 F. 187 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · Jan 5, 1887

The motion for an attachment in this case presents the same question that arose in Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed.

Brown v. Lapham

27 F. 77 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Apr 1, 1886

Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289 . It does not follow that lie will be always estopped because be lias stood in that relation.

Hake v. Brown

37 F. 783 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Mar 5, 1889

Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 789 ; Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778. The first claim of'the patent, therefore, appears to be good and valid for tbe method described. … McKloskey v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. Rep. 710, 9 Fed. Rep. 38; McCloskey v. Hamill, 15 Fed. Rep. 750. The second claim of this patent, therefore, appears to bé'invalid.

Bischoffsheim v. Brown

29 F. 341 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Dec 23, 1886

The case of Coit v. North Carolina Gold Amalgamating Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 577, is cited as an authority in this direction. Notwithstanding this authority it must be held that such practice cannot *342 be sanctioned. … Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 3 Cliff. 201 . He is bound to obey the writ and be ready to produce the papers in obedience to the summons.

Hake v. Brown

44 F. 734 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jan 9, 1891

The complainant cites the cases of Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467, and of Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. Rep. 883, in support of hiS contention. … Stimpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456 ; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. Rep. 49; Spill v. Manufacturing Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 870; Factory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 17 . See also the opinion of Judge Jackson in Ingham v.

Brown v. Zaubitz

105 F. 242 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Dec 10, 1900

Deering v. Harvesting Works, 155 U. S. 286, 300 , 15 Sup. Ct. 118, 39 L. Ed. 153 .

Machesney v. Brown

29 F. 145 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · Nov 26, 1886

Shaw, 16 Mass. 42 ; Fullam v. Inhabitants of West Brookfield, 91 Mass. 1 ; Townsend v. Hubbard, 4 Hill, 351 ; Kiersted v. Orange & A. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 343 . … The remarks of Story, J., in Clarke v. Courtney, 5 Pet. 350 , are apposite: “The act does not purport to be the act of the principals, but of the attorney. It is his deed and his seal, and not theirs.

Vermilya v. Brown

65 F. 149 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Nov 26, 1894

There is a distinction to be made between this case and those heretofore decided in this circuit, and cited on the argument, namely: Good Hope Co. v. Railway B. F. Co., 22 Fed. 635 ; Golden v. … News, 42 Fed. 112 ; Bentlif v. Finance Corp., 44 Fed. 667 ; and Clews v. Iron Co., Id. 31.

Brown v. Schoonmaker

4 F. Cas. 428 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Dec 3, 1855

According to the decision of the court of appeals, the highest court in the state of New York, in the ease of Lott v. Wyckoff, 2 Comst. [2 N. Y.] 355, affirming the judgment of the court below in the same case, J. S.

Bischoffsheim v. Brown

34 F. 156 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Mar 19, 1888

It is further averred by the bill that the banking firm of Brown Bros. & Co. and J. W. … Simultaneously with the delivery of this agreement, a letter was delivered to Cassel, signed by Brown and Seligman, which contains the alleged trust sought by the bill to be enforced.

Tarrow v. Brown

23 F. Cas. 707 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · Jul 1, 1872

[Cited in Brook v. Brown. Case No. 1.931. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible]

Wirt v. Brown

30 F. 188 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · Jan 21, 1887

Hake v. Brown

44 F. 283 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Dec 15, 1890

Brown v. Hall

4 F. Cas. 377 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Apr 10, 1869

Under the decisions in O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. [56 U. S.] 62, 110, and Pitts v.

Brown v. Burrows

4 F. Cas. 360 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Oct 15, 1851

Riggs v. Brown

172 F. 637 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · May 13, 1909

Riggs v. Brown

172 F. 638 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jun 16, 1909

Brown v. Zaubitz

105 F. 245 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Dec 10, 1900

The court had a somewhat similar state of facts to consider in Webbing Co. v. Nicholls (C. C.) 70 Fed. 1009 , and many of the observations there made are applicable to the present case.

United States v. Brown

24 F. Cas. 1271 · U.S. Circuit Court for New York · Apr 15, 1825

the United States in that sum; and for the payment of which they bind themselves jointly and severally, with a condition, that if the said Samuel Brown, Junr. … It may be pretty safely affirmed, that covenant upon this condition cannot be sustained against Jacob Brown, the surety.

United States v. Brown

119 F. 482 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Nov 19, 1902