Case law

Hayes v. Brown

59 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 612 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1889

Wygant v. Brown

62 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 608 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1890

Hayes v. Brown

6 N.Y.S. 766 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1889

Wormser v. Brown

80 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 615 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1893

Carpenter v. Brown

6 Barb. 147 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1849

In Bowdell v. … In North v.

Mason v. Brown

6 How. Pr. 481 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1852

Brown v. Brown

2 E.D. Smith 153 · New York Court of Common Pleas · Jul 15, 1853

In Hopkins v. Cabray, 24 Wend. 264 , the justice gave a similar reason for refusing to discontinue a suit, and his judgment was reversed. … (Maybee v. Avery, 18 Johns. 352 .) *157 The cases cited by the appellant are not in conflict with these views.

Brown v. Sniggs

47 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 638 · New York Supreme Court · May 22, 1886

Cheever v. Brown

62 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 607 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1890

Boyer v. Brown

4 Thomp. & Cook 698 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1874

Brown v. Mack

185 Misc. 368 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1945

Brown, the deceased husband of the plaintiff. The defendants are Christopher F. Mack, as executor of the last will and testament of Christopher W. Brown, deceased, and Christopher F. Mack, individually. … (Stevenson v. Ward, 48 App. Div. 291 ; Stuart v.

Powell v. Brown

3 Johns. 100 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1808

defendant’s engagement can be supported, if at all, is, that the plaintiff was to account to him for such share of the vessel, cargo and profits, as, upon a final settlement of all the accounts in relation to them, Watson Brown … For aught that appears, no liquidation of these accounts has ever been made ; and if made, it does not appear that Watson Brown was entitled to receive a cent.

Aylesworth v. Brown

10 Barb. 167 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1850

Rice, v. Ransom, ( 2 Hill, 54 , 57, 58,) the affidavit was made on the 6th of April, one month and nineteen days before the 25th of May when it was presented for redemption. … In The People v.

People v. Brown

84 Misc. 2d 267 · New York County Courts · Nov 20, 1975

Ketter, 76 Misc 2d 698 ; People v Gaissert, 75 Misc 2d 478 ). … (People v Gottlieb, 36 NY2d 629 .)

Brown v. Brown

36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 498 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1883

(See Robinson v. Raynor, 28 N. Y., 494 ; Lisk v. Sherman, 25 Barb., 433 ; Bunton v. Smith, 40 N. H., 352; Smith v. Crandall, 20 Md., 482 ; Foot v. Webb, 59 Barb., 38 ; Ackerman v. Ackerman, Exr., 24 N. J. … Eq., 315; Twiss v. George, 33 Mich., 253 .) In Purcell v.

Dauchy v. Brown

41 Barb. 555 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1863

The only point decided in Watson v. Davis, ( 19 Wend. 371 ,) is that a judgment rendered by a justice after the four days given by statute for that purpose is erroneous ; and in Bissell v. … Sibley v.

Burke v. Brown

180 Misc. 903 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1943

Reis Co. v. Post, 183 App. Div. 696 ). … (Chartered Bank of India v. Nassau Fire Ins. Co., 145 App. Div. 307 ; Losie v. Royal Ind. Co., 179 App. Div. 439 ; De Cordova v. Sanville, 171 App. Div. 422 .) Settle order.

Guidet v. Brown

54 How. Pr. 409 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

Brown, deceased. The parties were married in 1828. In 1855 an agreement was entered into between John L.-Brown, of the first part, Mary Ann Bro.wn, of the second part, and George Johnson, of the third part. … The conclusion reached is that there should be judgment for partition of the lands, but that Mary Ann Brown is endowed of the lands in question.

Brown v. McMorran

39 Misc. 2d 716 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1963

Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome County, 18 N. Y. 155 ; Schieffelin v. Komfort, 212 N. Y. 520, 530, 533 ; Headley v. City of Rochester, 272 N. Y. 197 ; Kipp v. Incorporated Vil. of Ardsley, 13 A D 2d 1012; Blumberg v. … Daley v. Rice, 129 N. Y. 449 ; Matter of McCabe v. Voorhis, 243 N. Y. 401 ).

Brown v. Zeiss

9 Daly 240 · New York Court of Common Pleas · Apr 5, 1880

actual filing of the notice, the lien will be cut off, if, at the time of filing the notice, the premises have vested in another by grant, or by operation of law, as in the case of the death of the contracting owner (Meyers v.