Case law

Biddle v. Brown

8 Pa. D. & C. 579 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 27, 1927

As was said in a New York case (Markham v. Jaudon, 41 New York, 235), it is as unreasonable as to assert a custom to protest notes on the first day of grace. Such custom cannot be regarded as a defence.

Brown v. Syostek

2 Pa. D. & C. 431 · Pennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · Jun 20, 1922

It seems to be established that section 14 of the Practice Act limits the right of counter-claim to actions of assumpsit: Jarecki v. Montgomery, 69 Pitts. L. J. 109 (1920). *432 In Shoemaker v. Myers, 30 Dist. … The Supreme Court of our State has held that unliquidated claims for tort, fraud or deceits are not proper set-offs or counter-claims: Roth v. Reiter, 213 Pa. 400 .

Brown v. Kaplan

3 Pa. D. & C. 751 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County · Nov 16, 1922

White v. … Marmaduke v. Brown, 254 Pa. 18 , seems to be practically the same case as Musselman & Clarkson’s Appeal, 62 Pa. 81 . The lower court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion.

Brown v. Traver

43 Pa. D. & C. 310 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Wyoming County · Jan 9, 1942

Brown, to the said J. EL Brown, and I do hereby give, render and enter judgment in favor of J. H. … Counsel for plaintiff says that Wheeling v. Phillips, supra, and Stone et al. v. Marshall Oil Co. et al., 188 Pa. 602 , are in conflict with Rea v.

Brown v. Post

6 Rob. 111 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jul 15, 1868

(Graves v. Dash, 12 John. 19 . Denston v. Henderson, 13 id. 322. De Rham v. Grove, 18 Abb. 43 . Story’s Confl. of Laws, §§ 309, 311. Cash v. Kennion, 11 Ves. 314. Grant v. Healey, 3 Sumn. 523 . Smith v. Shaw, 2 Wash. C. … S. 174,) Rodes v. Bronson, ( 34 N. Y. Rep. 649 ,) and Murray v. Harrison, ( 47 Barb. 484 ; 45 id. 579, 618 ,) would have been applicable.

Brown v. Richardson

4 Rob. 603 · The Superior Court of New York City · May 27, 1865

(Richards v. Walton, 12 John. 434 . Cruikshank v. Gardner, 2 Hill, 333 . Sheldon v. Quinlen, 5 id. 441 . Harman v. Brotherson, 1 Denio, 537 . Smith v. Huestis, Hill & Den. Sup. 236. Moulton v. Norton, 5 Barb. 286 .) … (Bate v. Fellowes, 4 Bosw. 638 .)

Bonner v. Brown

5 Pa. D. & C. 365 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Oct 2, 1924

Brown.” … In Standard Refrigerator Co. v. Apeldorn & Beatty Co., 77 Pa.

Brown v. DeGrace

193 Misc. 2d 391 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2002

Brown, and defendant, John A. … Matter of Harwood v Dodd, 78 AD2d 644 [2d Dept], affd 51 NY2d 836 [1980].)

Brown v. Division of Highways

25 Ct. Cl. 31 · West Virginia Court of Claims · Oct 9, 2003

(See Hale v. Dept. of Highways 11 Ct. Cl. 93 (1976), Withrow v. Dept. of Highways 17 Ct. Cl. 47 (1987), Boyle v. Division of Highways 19 Ct. Cl. 103 (1992).) … Award to James Brown: $77,353.31. Award to Angela Brown: $5,000.00.

Brown v. Smith

16 N.Y. St. Rep. 755 · New York City Court · May 28, 1888

Bushby v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western R. R. Co., 107 N. Y., 374 ; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 id., 547. There was direct testimony in the case that the bits were defective. … Dyer v. The Erie Railway Company, 71 N. Y., 228; Coulter v. The American Merchants Union Express Company, 56 id., 585.

Price v. Brown

5 N.Y. St. Rep. 7 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1886

(Ganley v. Troy City National Bank, 98 N. Y. 487 .) We think tbe judgment should be affirmed with costs. Beady and DaNibls, JJ., concur.

Dawley v. Brown

4 N.Y. St. Rep. 406 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1887

Judgment by default against Fox and Brown was entered upon the complaint so amended, and on the seventh of July thereafter the deputy sheriff of Monroe county with an execution upon the judgment called upon Brown and Fox … The decision was based upon the decision in The Chautauqua County Bank v. White (2 Seld., 236), Same v. Risley ( 19 N. Y., 369 ), Walker v. White ( 36 *410 Barb., 592 ). The more recent cases of Erickson v.

Brown v. Marine Club, Inc.

51 Ohio Misc. 51 · Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · Aug 6, 1976

Brown prays that this court: “1. Grant and decree judgment for the plaintiff on. each of the five counts contained herein. “2. … Columbus v. Barr (1953), 160 Ohio St. 209 . See Kraus v. Cleveland (1950), 58 Ohio Law Abs. 353 , 94 N. E. 2d 814 , appeal dismissed 155 Ohio St. 98 .

Brown v. Martin

10 N.Y. St. Rep. 846 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1887

Mason v. Anthony, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 207 ; Ahern v. Goodspeed, 72 N. Y., 108 ; Smyth v. Munroe, 84 id., 354; Fleischmann v. Stern, 90 id., 110; Platt v. Newcomb, 27 Hun, 186 . … Bank v. Bank, etc., 50 N. Y., 575 ; Blair v. Wait, 69 id., 113. The evidence was such as to present a question of fact for the jury.

Brown v. Bowe

7 N.Y. St. Rep. 387 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1887

Brown v. Bowe, 35 Hun, 488 . … In support of the present appeal it has been urged by the counsel for the appellant that, the case of Griffin v. The Long Is. R. R. Co. ( 101 N. Y., 348 ); (1 N. Y.

Sharpley v. Brown

4 N.Y. St. Rep. 784 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1886

In Volans v. Owen ( 74 N. … Y., 338 ); Kellogg v. N. Y. Central ( 79 N. Y., 72 ), and the like.

Dawley v. Brown

11 N.Y. St. Rep. 260 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1887

Chautauqua Bank v. White, 2 Seld., 236; Chautauqua Bank v. Risley, 19 N. Y., 369 ; Walker v. White, 36 Barb., 592 ; Dawley v. Brown, 65 Barb. 107 . … In Sherman v. McKeon ( 38 N.

People v. Brown

190 Misc. 2d 710 · New York County Courts · Mar 13, 2002

Reasonably believes as contained in article 35 of the Penal Law involves both a subjective and objective test (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 ). … (People v Starkes, supra at 190 , quoting L 1999, ch 635, § 2, reprinted following Penal Law § 120.50; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Kleinberger v. Brown

26 Jones & S. 4 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 4, 1890

In Champlin v. … This case was cited with approval in Judson v. Easton, 58 N.Y. 664 .

Waterville Manufacturing Co. v. Brown & Bryan

9 How. Pr. 27 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1853

The defendant Brown cannot object that the instrument of October 26th, 1848, was not a joint proposition by both the defendants, and the subsequent transactions between the parties show that both Brown and Bryan regarded