Case law

Plainville v. Brown

4 Va. 482 · Virginia Chancery Court · Feb 15, 1810

Snyder v. Brown

43 Pa. D. & C.3d 532 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County · May 15, 1986

At a hearing before a board of arbitration, an award in the amount of $7,010.41, together with interest, was *533 entered on October 31, 1985, against defendant Sterling L. Brown only. … Brown was conveyed to him to Wilmer S. Brown and Alice.M. Brown, his wife, and Sterling L. Brown as joint tenants with right of sur-vivorship.

Clinton v. Brown

41 Barb. 226 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1863

Perkins, the plaintiff’s witnesses, or as stated by the defendant Brown, and two or three others, were questions of fact, as to which the evidence was conflicting. … Brown, to prevent his doing so, stated, in substance, that they (the defendants) would not require it, or that it would make no difference, and thus prevented their being branded.

Brown v. Evans

34 Barb. 594 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1861

The rule as to the parties and the correct method of procedure in such cases will be found stated by the chancellor in Gilchrist v. Rea, ( 9 Paige, 66 .) See also Gardner v. Gardner, (5 id. 170 ;) Kellett v. … Emott, Lott, Brown and Scrugham, Justices.]

Brown v. St. John

19 Wend. 617 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1838

Knap v. Smith, 7 Wendell, 534, 5 . Mulholand v. Van Tine, 8 Cowen, 132.

Greenland v. Brown

1 S.C. Eq. 196 · Court of Chancery of South Carolina · Sep 15, 1789

The hill charges- that tlie complainant was a widow, possessed of a considerable real and personal-estate, and March, 1788, intermarried with Cornelius Brown, an Englishman who had recently settled in the country— And he, … Brown wrote several letters to his friends in Eng-laud, wh\h disclose his situation and his views — copies are fi]et} with the bill. In one of them, written to his , . , _ , , ,. , . .,. . brother in law Mr.

Brown v. Wright

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 178 · Court of Chancery of South Carolina · Mar 3, 1718

Wrights Fam-ilys their boarding and dieting with the Said Mr. Brown or any proposals made of any Such Agreement Did not the said Mr. Browns Family Sometimes Eat of Mrs. Wrights provision Did the said Mr. … Brown or his Wife that She knows of noe Agreement made between Mr. Wright and Mr. Brown nor between Mrs. Wright and Mrs Brown concerning the said Mr Wrights Family Boarding and dieting with the Said Mr.

Brown v. Brent

1 Va. 4 · Virginia Chancery Court · Sep 22, 1806

Commonwealth v. Brown

56 Pa. D. & C.2d 347 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County · Apr 24, 1972

In Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, 47 D. & C. 2d 341, 39 Northampton Co.

Brown v. Wagner

1 Pears. 254 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County · Aug 7, 1865

Brown, for plaintiff. Mumma, for defendant.

Pittsburgh v. Brown

13 Pa. D. & C.2d 659 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Oct 11, 1957

The Bureau of Lands and Buildings of the City of Pittsburgh made no effort to collect rent from the property until May 1951, when it began to collect for a sign board on the property.

Brown v. Ginn

19 Ohio C.C. 660 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

In this case Brown averred in his answer that the claim ued upon by the trustee had been paid in money. … It is ■ laimed here that Brown under hits answer was entitled to show payment in any method, and the court erred in confining him to showing payment by money only.

Brown v. State

2 Ohio C.C. 129 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Feb 15, 1887

In Van Buskirk v. … Following Stanley v. State, 23 Ohio St., 581 ; and Farris v. State, 1 Ohio St., 188 . In Jennings v.

Bray v. Brown

27 Ohio C.C. Dec. 618 · Cuyahoga Circuit Court · Nov 18, 1907

C.), by petition (Ralston v. Wells, 49 Ohio St. 298 [30 N. E. Rep. 784]). The application in this case was not by petition but by motion, and hence this ground could not properly be asserted or considered. … In Bonewitz v. Bonewitz, 50 Ohio St. 373 [34 N. E. Rep. 332; 40 Am. St. Rep. 671 ], the first two paragraphs of the syllabus are as follows: “1.

Kapitzky v. Brown

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 464 · Cuyahoga Circuit Court · Dec 4, 1911

The plaintiff is not entitled to have Brown’s side porch removed. … Brown’s side porch, which encroaches upon this twenty feet, is not a violation of the general plan or scheme as thus expressed. The petition will be dismissed. Marvin and Henry, JJ., concur.

Brown v. State

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 685 · Summit Circuit Court · Apr 20, 1907

affidavit on which the justice’s jurisdiction, was founded alleged that the complainant was “an unmarried woman in the sense that she has not lived with her husband for five years last past, nor have she and her husband Brown … Ro th v. Jacobs, 21 Ohio St. 646 ; Hoff v. Fisher, 26 Ohio St. 7 ; Miller v. Anderson, 43 Ohio St. 473 [ 3 N. E. 605 ; 54 Ann. Rep. 823]; Miller v. Busick, 56 Ohio St. 437 [ 47 N. E. 248 ]; Cline v.

Brown v. State

10 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 238 · Lucas County Court of Common Pleas · Jul 13, 1910

This view is supported by the ease of Emerson, etc., Co. v. Pearson, 74 N.

Brown v. DeLong

6 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 510 · Licking County Court of Common Pleas · Jan 15, 1908

I refer to Lyon v. Phares, 9 C. C. — N. S., 614, which is a ease similar to this in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County. … I intended to refer to the decision in Beardsley v. Zacharias & Co., 19 C. C., 637, which holds that: .

Brown v. State

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 93 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Apr 30, 1910

Brown v. Parham

1 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 602 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Dec 16, 1903

When the case of Wentzel v. Hayes et al, 16 C. C., 110, was decided, Section 5441, Revised Statutes, as 'amended in 81 O.