(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Table of cases criticised : presenting decisions of the courts of the State of New York, which have been affirmed, reversed or modified in error or on appeal ... from the earliest period to January 1, 1887"

KFN5038.AlTT2 1887 ,yUbrary 
T SSSumSmSSSSS : P rese "«n9 de 



3 1924 017 679 "J" 




193© J I 




Cornell University 
Library 



The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 



http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017679782 



NOTICE. 



In every case after consulting the Main Table, look also 

under the same name in the Supplementary Table following 
page 872. 



ABBOTT'S NEW" YOKE DIGEST. 



TABLE 



OP 



OASES CEITICISED 



PRESENTING 

DECISIONS OP THE COURTS OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK, WHICH 

HATE BEEN APPIEMED, REVERSED OR MODIFIED 

IN ERROR OR ON APPEAL, 



EXAMINED AND EXPLAINED, LIMITED, QUESTIONED, OVERRULED, 

OR APPROVED AND FOLLOWED IN LATER DECISIONS OP 

AMERICAN OR ENGLISH COURTS, OR BY 

COMMENTATORS AND TEXT , 

WRITERS; 



PROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD, 

TO 

JANUARY 1, 1887. 



EDITED 

BY 

AUSTIN ABBOTT, 



NEW YORK : 

DIOSST & COMPANY, 

Covd ijjlttblistyera, 

231 BROADWAY. 

1887. 




COPTBIGBT, 

1887: 

BY AUSTIN ABBOTT. 



I/* 



ADVERTISEMENT. \%a 



This is not a mere Table of Cases cited. It is a Table of Cases weighed and 
confirmed or qualified. Mere citations and reiterations which add no new significance 
to the original case are discarded, and the reader is thus saved the labor of running down 
decisions of little interest ; and the space thus gained has enabled the editor to present 
in intelligible but concise form a clue to the opinions of the ablest jurists and commen- 
tators throughout the country, upon the subject in question. 

The reports of the Courts of all the States and of the United States, as well as a 
selection of those of England, have been included in the examination made for this 
purpose ; and that which the editor deemed most worthy the attention of the practitioner 
has been sifted out, and cited with sufficient fullness to enable the reader to see at once 
whether the criticising authority bears on the subject which he is looking up. And 
numerous references to the Code and other Statutes have also been included. 

The useful annotations in the well-known series of the American Reports, American 
Decisions, American Law Register, MoaJc's English Reports, and others have been also 
frequently referred to. 

The various well-known collections of Leading American Cases, such as those of 
Hake & Wallace, Sedgwick, Bigelow, Thompson, and others of equal value, have been 
included ; and numerous references have been made to the best comments in the Leading 
Periodicals, such as the Albany Law Journal, the Central Law Journal, and the American 
and Southern Law Reviews. 

Perhaps more important still are the references to Leading Text- Writers, including 
the works of Angel & Ames, Benjamin, Bigelow, Bishop, Irving Browne, Judge Coolet, 
Jddge Dillon, Gbeenleaf, High, Hoffman, Jones, Chancellob Kent, Moak, Morawetz, 
Pbof. Paksons, Pkof. Pomeboy, Redfield, Judge Stobt, Judge Seymotjb D. Thompson, 
Peof. Washbuen, Db. Whabton, and many other writers on special subjects. 

The object of the work is to give the reader a ready clue to the position which the 
Case occupies in American Jurisprudence, and thus afford a guide to all the best authori- • 
ties on the subject. 

The work is complete in one "volume. It has been thought that as the citations 
would give the means of pursuing the subject to any extent, it was better to curtail the 
statements, so far as necessary to present the whole in a single volume. 

Inasmuch as the annual volumes issued by the editor in continuation of the New 
York Digest embody a full collection not only of criticisms, but also of all the recent 
citations, all these being there stated much more at large than would be possible in a 
volume like this, the editor has been able, by referring, in the Supplementary Table fol- 
lowing page 872, to those Annuals, to give the reader immediate clue to all the 
later criticism much more fully than in the main table. 

BS|§r " Therefore in every case, after consulting the Main Table, look 
also under the same name in the Supplementary Table. 

The editor desires to acknowledge valuable assistance from Frederick H. Cooke, 
Esq., in aiding the execution of the work, and seeing it through the press. 



ABBOTT'S 
CASES CRITICISED. 



A TABLE 



OASES AFFIRMED, APPROVED, EXPLAINED, DISTINGUISHED, 
DOUBTED, DISAPPROVED, OVERRULED OR REVERSED, &c, 

BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS IN NEW YORK, OB ELSEWHEBE, OB BY THE 
LEADING TEXT WEITEES ; 

"WITH NOTICES OF CASES INCORRECTLY REPORTED, OR OF WHICH THERE ARE 

TWO OR MORE DIFFERING REPORTS, AND OF DECISIONS 

SUPERSEDED BY STATUTE. 



A case which has been carried by appeal or otherwise, to another tribunal for review, is described as having been 
Affirmed, Modified, or Reversed, as the cape may be. . A case, the soundness of which has been discussed in the 
determination of some other came, is described either as having been Approved, Explained or Distinguished, or, 
if unfavorably noticed, as having been Doubted. Disapproved. Limited, or Overruled, according to the decisive- 
ness of the criticism, and its weight as a countervailing authority. 

We have presented an indication of what point iu' the case in chief, is affected by the criticism, ezcept in 
some cases, where, with the necessary conciseness, it was not possible to indicate it so completely that the reader 
might at once judge whether a reference to the critical authority would throw any light on the subject under his 
examination. 



Abbe t. Allen, 39 How. Pr. 481. Afl'd it 
seems, in 52 If. Y. 636 ; but no opinion re- 
ported. 

Abbe v. Eaton, 51 K Y. 410 ; following 
Wolfe v. Myers, 3 Sand/. 7 ; and Meyer v. 
Peck, 28 N. Y. 590 ; is cited, with others, in 
2 Whart. on Ev. % 1070, n., as to bills of 
lading, like any receipts, being open to ex- 
planation by parol evidence. 

Abbey v. Abbey, 6 How. Pr. 340, n. Contra, 
see Leslie «. Leslie, Abb. Pr. If. 8. 193 ; 
(Alimony) where it is said to be imperfectly 
reported, and decided when the Code did 
not make orders appealable which "affect 
a substantial right." 

v. Steamboat R. L. Stevens. 22 How. 

Pr. 78; Wells v. Steam Navigation Co., 2 
If. Y. 204; and 8 If. Y. 375; Merrick v. 
Brainard, 38 Barb. 574, 585 ; Merrick «. 
Van Santvoord, 34 If. Y. 208 ; and others, 
followed and approved in Brown v. Clegg, 
63 Penn. St. 51; s. c., 3 Am. R. 522; as 
in harmony with the Penn. doctrine, and 
that of the U. S. courts, as to steam tow- 
boats not being common carriers of the 
vessels they tow. 

Abbott v. Allen, 2 Johns. Oh. 519 ; s. a, 7 
Am. Bee. 554, with note, collecting citations 
thereof. See another proceeding in the 
same case, — doubtless that suggested by the 
chancellor at p. 525, in 14 Johns. 248. 

That a grantee of land, in undisturbed 
possession, will not be relieved against his 
purchase money bond and mortgage, merely 
for defect of title, without fraud, or evic- 



tion, but must rely upon the covenants in 
his deed. 

Followed in 5 Johns. Oh. 30 ; Id. 80 ; 2 
Edw. Oh. 37; 3 Id. 124; Clarke Oh. 571; 
26 Wend. 109 ; 9 Pal Oh. 443 ; 2 Sandf. Oh. 
344; 3 Sandf. 118; 20 Barb. 429; 39 Id. 
661 ; 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 93 ; 74 If. Y. 88 ; 
81 Id. 277; 14 Week. Big. 564. See 2 
Kent Com. 471, 472 ; where the author sub- 
stantially reiterates this doctrine as laid 
down by him in the principal case, which he 
cites as authority, but does not that of John- 
son v. Gere, 2 Johns. Ch. 546 ; which was 
an ex-parte allowance of an injunction made 
by him out of court some two weeks later. 
Compare, as to this, Woodruff v. Bunce, 9 
Pai. Oh. 442, 444; Banks v. Walker, 2 
Sandf. Oh. 344, 349;' Piatt v. Gilchrist, 3 
Sandf. 118, 121. See Bumpus «. Platner, 
1 Johns. Oh. 213; Potter*). Kitchen. 

The principal case is also cited and applied, 
as to equity's reluctance to try titles to land 
undetermined at law, in Stuarts' Heirs v. 
Coalter, 4 Hand. (Va.) 74; s. c, 15 Am. 
Bee. 731 ; with elaborate note, collating and 
reviewing the authorities. 

v. , 14 Johns. 248. See another and 

apparently earlier proceeding in this case, 
by a bill in equity, in 2 Johns. Oh. 519 ; 
above. 

Examined and followed (Pleading — aver- 
ments of title ; burden of proof ; action for 
breach of covenant of seizin) in 5 Bosw. 
566 ; but distinguished, as under the com- 
mon law rules and before the mcording acts, 



ABBOTT- ABEEL. 



iu Woolley v. Hewcombe, 58 How. Pr. 480 ; 
which is affd in 87 K Y. 605. 

— v. American Hard Rubber Co. See 
Abbott ». Hard Rubber Co. 

v. Broome, 1 Gai. 292; s. c.,"2 Am. 

Dec. 187 ; 2 If. Y. Com. L., law. Ed. 
157; with brief note as to right and effect 

•of abandonment. See Saidler v. Church. 
Reviewed at length (Ins. — abandonment; 
and waiver of loss of voyage) in 2 Gai. 
280, 290 ; where it is approved and thought 
to have shaken the authority of McMas- 
ters v. Shoalbred, 1 Esp. 237. Relied 
on (Waiver of abandonment) in Walden v. 
Phoenix Ins. Co., 5 Johns. 310, 325; and 
in Ogden v. N. Y. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Id. 177, 
180. There are conflicting views expressed 
throughout these cases, as to whether the 
principal case shakes, or is distinguishable 
from, the case of Saidler & Craig v. Church, 
July Term, 1799; the substance of which is 
stated in 2 Cai. 286 ; and compare state- 
ment there with that at p. 291 of same. 

v. Draper, 4 Den. 51. See Lockwood 

v. Barnes. As to part performance; ven- 
dor and purchaser ; vendee of land seeking 
to recover money paid on oral contract ; 
and what will sustain such a suit, — its 
principles affirmed in Collier v. Coates, 17 
Barb. 471, 473 ; quoted from and applied 
in Thomas «. Dickinson, 12 K Y. 364, 371; 
in Eraser v. Child, 4 E. D. Smith, 153, 161 ; 
followed in Marsh i>. Wyckoff, 10 Bosw. 
202, 208; and followed in Campbell v. 
Campbell, 65 Barl. 639, 642, 644. Its 
principles applied (Part-performance of oral 
contract) in Van Valkenburg «. Croffut, 
15 Hun, 147, 151. Distinguished (Demand 
in cases of fraud) in Sharkey v. Mansfield, 
90 A r . Y. 227, 229. Limited in 26 Mich. 
421. Explained and distinguished (Measure 
of damages) withLiskrc. Sherman, 25 Barb. 
433. Approved in Browne on Stat, oj 
Frauds, (4th ed.) § 122. 

— v. Hard Rubber Co., 11 Abb. Pr. 204; 
s. c. , 20 How. Pr. 199, where it is entitled 
Abbott v. American Hard Rubber Co., and 
as Abbott v. Judson. Affirmed (Corp. — 
power of directors ; assent of stockholders ; 
ultra vires ; injunction) as Abbot v. Ame- 
rican Hard Rubber Co., in 33 Barb. 578; 
S. c, 21 How. Pr. 193. The affirming case 
is quoted and collated with others, in Field 
on Ultra Vires, 314. Is distinguished 
(Where a Corp. had virtually ceased to 
exist) in Murray v. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140, 
157. Followed (Corp. — fraudulent assign- 
ment; stockholder's action) in Smith v. N. 
Y. Consolidated Stage Co., 18 Abb. Pr. 
419, 421. Relied on (Stockholder's remedies 
— accounting) in Dyckman v. Valiente, 28 
Bow. Pr. 346, 348; also (Corp.— officers' 
duties and powers) in Madison Ave. Bap- 
tist Church v. Baptist Church, 1 Sweeney, 
109, 128 ; (Corp. — its transfer of assets) 
in Meade v. St. Louis Mutual Life Ins. Co., 
51 How. Pr. 1,6; and highly approved 
as to principles governing the power and 



duties of directors and trustees of corpora- 
tions, with numerous citations of cases sus- 
taining its doctrines, though distinguished 
as to facts, in Sheldon Hat Blocking Co. ». 
Eickmeyer Hat Blocking Co., 56 Id. 70, 79 ; 
and quoted from (R. R. & R. R. Co's — di- 
rectors) in Metropolitan El. R'y Co. ■». 
Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. M. G. 103, 239. 

v. Johnstown, &c, Horse It. R. Co., 

80 XT. Y. 27; s. c, 36 Am. R. 572. Com- 
pare to the same effect, Singleton v. South- 
western R. R., 70 Ga. 464; s. c, 48 Am. 
E. 574, with note. Explained and distin- 
guished (R. R. & R. R. Co's — power to 
lease; respective rights of parties) in Wood- 
ruff" v. Erie R'y Co., 93 N. Y. 609, 617. 

Plaintiff subsequently recovered a verdict 
against the company ; see Abbott v. Johns- 
town, &c. Horse R. R. Co., 12 Week. Dig. 
189; s. c. more fully, 24 Run, 135. 

■ v. Judson. See Abbott v. Hard Rubber 

Co. 

v. People, 15 Sun, 437. Affd (False 

pret. Indict. Conflict of law) in 75 N. 
Y. 602. 

v. , 12 Weekly Dig. 282. Affd 

(Trial — jurors ; challenge. Evidence. Q. 
of L. & F.) in 13 Id. 471 ; s. c. more fully. 
80 N. Y. 460. 

v. Sebor, 3 Johns. Gas. 39, with notes ; 

s. c, 2 Am. Dec. 139 ; 1 N. Y. Com. L., 
Law. Ed. 610; with brief note on insur- 
ing profits and freight. Explained and dis- 
tinguished ^ns. on profits ; and question as 
to necessary proofs) in Patapsco Ins. Co. v. 
Coulter, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 222, 240. 

T. Smith, 8 How. Pr. 463. Relied on 

(Appearance. Notice. Default. Security 
for costs) in Carpenter v. N. Y. & N. H. 
R. R. Co., 11 How. Pr. 481, 483. Dis- 
tinguished and doubted (as to notice of 
retainer after default being -effective) in 
Pearl v. Robitscheck, 2 Daly, 50, 53. See" 
also, on s. p., White «. Featherstonhaugh, 
7 How. Pr. 357. 

Abeel v. Radcliff, 13 Johns. 297; s. c, 7 Am. 
Dec. 377, with note. See a further proceed- 
ing in the same case to determine the 
amount of rent, in 15 Johns. 505. Said 
in Stewart ■». Hanley, 21 Wend. 651, 663, 
(Covenant to renew — certainty in written 
instruments) to have been clearly a case 
of patent ambiguity, within Lord Bacon's 
rule, the clause rejected for uncertainty 
having no reference to a subsisting object. 
Reviewed at length, with others, to the 
same effect, in Western Transportation Co. 
of Buffalo ». Lansing, 49 N. Y. 499, 504-5. 
Relied on to the same effect in Holmes v. 
Evans, 48 Miss. 247 ; s. c, 12 Am. E. 372. 
See 6 Am. L. Eev. p. 1 to 36, Oct., 1871, 
for an article upon estoppel of a tenant to 
deny his landlord's title, collating many 
cases. 

v. , 15 Johns. 505. See earlier pro- 
ceeding in the same case, 13 Johns. 297; 
s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 377. Approved as to the 
effect of holding over, upon which the court 



AEELL— ACKEE. 



IB said not to have been divided, in Sher- 
wood v. Phillips, 13 Wend. 479, 483. Dis- 
tinguished (s. p. — as of slight bearing) in 
Conway v. Starkweather, 1 Ben. 113, 115 ; 
and (s. p. — as a case where the first rent 
was for the lot only) in Bradley 1>. Covel, 

4 Cow. 349; also in Holsman v. Abrams, 
2 Duer, 435, 448 ; where it is doubted, and 
said to be alone in principle and not easy to 
be reconciled with prior authorities, and 
inapplicable when the improvements made 
by a tenant during his term at its expiration 
belong to him and not to his landlord. • On 
the point that accruing rent belongs to the 
heir, — approved in 17 III. 493 ; citing 13 id 
364 ; 4 McLean, 572 ; and 4 Cush. 386. 

Abell T. Douglass, 4 Den. 305. See Robin- 
son v. Dauchy. 

Abels t. Westervelt, 24 How. Pr. 284; s. c, 
more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 230. Explained 
(Attachment of partnership property. Sher- 
iff's liability) and distinguished as a case 
involving creditor's rights, — in Smith v. 
Orser, 43 Barb. 187, 191. Not authority 
for attaching partnership credits and balan- 
ces, — see Barry v. Fisher, 8 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 
369, 379; reviewing the cases. Collated 
with others, in Thomp. on Prov. Bern. 37. 

Abercronibie, Matter of, 4 Bun, 141. Affd 
(Surrogate's court — his power to direct 
auditor to bring in additional report) in 
63 N. Y. 628 ; as Abercrombie v. Holder. 

v. Holder, 63 ST. Y. 628. See Aber- 
crombie, Matter of. 

Aberdeen v. Iilackinur, 6 Hill, 324. Ap- 
proved (Covenant of indemnity — when not 
broken) in Lathrop v. Atwood. 21 -Conn. 
117, -125. Compare Booth i: Starr, 1 Id. 244; 
Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 If. Y. 550; Churchill v. 
Hart, 3 Ben. 321. 

Abernethy t. Society of Church of Puri- 
tans, 3 Daly, 1. Collated (Relig. Corp. — 
pews) in Vi Am. L. Reg. If. S. 542, n. 

Abliam v. Boyd, 5 Daly, 321. See further 
proceeding, 7 Id. 30. 

Abraham v. Plestoro, 3 Wend. 538; s. c, 
10 N. Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 460, with 
brief note, citing conflicting English and 
American authorities; and20^4m. Bee. 738, 
with note ; reversing 1 Paige, 236. See John- 
son v. Hunt. Followed (Conf. of L. Jurisd. 
Comity — title under foreign bankrupt law) 
in Mosselman «. Caen, 34 Barb. 66, 67. 
Belied on (Foreign bankrupt law. Comity) 
in Willits v. Waite, in 25 If. Y. 577, 
583, 586 ; and see Olyphant D. Atwood, 4 
Bosw. 459. Its effect considered in Johnson 
v. Hunt, 23 Wend. 89; Hoyt v. Thompson, 

5 If. Y. 320, 341, 353; Bell ». Hunt, 3 
Barb. Gh. 391. Explained (Comity) in 
Ackerman v. Cross, 40 Barb. 465, 485 ; 
together with the distinction between vol- 
untary and compulsory assignments in this 
respect; but compare Mosselman v. Caen, 1 
Bun, 647, 649. Followed (Comity, etc.) in 
Hibernia Nat. Bk. v. Lacombe, 21 Id. 166, 
176 ; collecting approving comments and 

, analogous cases from U. S. and other 



courts. Compare Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 
{U. 8.) 610, 626, et seq., where the principal 
case was reviewed at length and great stress 
was laid upon the character or nationality of 
the vessel, upon the high seas, in which the 
goods were shipped. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 
409, n., as in conformity with the general 
doctrine prevailing in the U. S. 

Abrahams v. Bensen, 11 Week. Dig. 329; 
s. c, 22 Hun, 605 ; and more fully in 60 How. 
Pr. 208. There is a previous proceeding in 
76 If. Y. 629. 

Abrahams v. Mitchell, 8 Abb. Pr. 123. Ap- 
proved (Service, and proof of) in Brooklyn 
Trust Company v. Bulmer, 49 If. Y. 84. 

Abrams r. People, 6 Hun, 491. See People 
v. Cogdell. 

Acer v. Wescott, 1 Lam. 193. Rev'd (Deed — 
when recital in is constructive notice of de- 
fect of title) in 46 N. Y. 384. 

Achley's Case, 4 Abb. Pr. 35. As to mayor 
not being a member of common council. 
(Mun. Corp. — officers.) But compare Cas- 
sidy ». City of Brooklyn, 10 Id. If. 8. 297 ; 
affd in 47 If. Y- 659 ; also People ex rel. 
Ennis s. Schroeder, 76 Id. 160 ; and North 
v. Cary, 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 357. 

Ackart v. Lansing, 48 How. Pr. 374 ; mem. 
of s. c. as Ackert v. Lansing, in 59 If. Y. 
646. See further decision in 6 Hun, 476. 

Acker v. Acker, 16 Hun, 173. Bev'd (Lim. 
of a. Married women) in 81 If. Y. 143; 
which is followed, on same points, in Clarke 
v. Gibbons, 83 id. 107, 110; and in Howell 
v. Leavitt, 95 Id. 617, 623; and disting'd 
(Statutes — construction of) in Williams «. 
City of Chicago, 25 Hun, 36, 38 ; and in 
Watson v. Forty-second St., &c. R. R. Co., 
93 If. Y. 522. 

v. Burrall, 21 Wend. 605. Aff'd (Sher- 
iffs — color of office. Pleading) iu 23 Id. 

606, as Burrall ». Acker. Disting'd as a 
case of estoppel by deed and its dictum 
criticised, in dissenting opinion to Dezell ■». 
Odell, 3 Hill, 215, 226. Relied on (Officers 
— securities taken by ; color of office) in 
Decker v. Judson, 16 jV. Y. 439, 442. 

v. Campbell, 23 Wend. 372. Question- 
ed in Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348, 349, 
354, as to its application of the rule that 
one who takes goods by trespass from a. 
trespasser is liable in trespass to the owner, 
which is elaborately discussed. See Com. 
Dig , Tresp. D. Disting'd in Lees v. Rich- 
ardson, 2 Hilt. 164, 175, as being decided 
upon the ground of fraud. 

— - v. Ledyard, 8 Barb. 514. Rev'd (Sher- 
iffs) in 8 If. Y. 62 ; but the remarks there as 
to unauthorized appearance of att'y, cited as 
obiter in dissenting opinion of Gkover, J., 
iu Brown v. Nichols, 42 Id. 26, 36. Com- 
pare Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 Id. 253, 255 ; 
s. c, 26 Am. R. 589. 

• v. Phoenix, 4 Pai. 305. Followed (Ev. — 

parol, to vary written contract) in N. Y. 
Exchange Co. a. De Wolf, 5 Bosw. 593, 

607. Disting'd (Debt, and Cred. — composi- 
tion deeds) in Renard v. Tuller, 4 Id. 107, 



ACKERMAN--ADAIR. 



118 ; as a case of an explicit condition in 
the instrument. Collated with Renard v. 
Tuller, 4 Bosw. 107 ; and other cases , in a 
note, as to the effect of composition deeds, 
in 28 Am. R. 293. 

— T. White, 25 Wend. 614. Explained 
and distiDg'd (Replevin of goods that have 
been levied upon) in Burkle v. Luce, 1 N. Y. 
163, 168. Applied (Lien on chattels held un- 
der replevin process) with Manning v. Kee- 
nan, 73 N. Y. 45 ; in Second Nat. Bk. of Os- 
wego v. Dunn, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 259. 

Ackerman v. Ackerman, 11 Abb. Pr. 256. 
Rev'd (Attorney's lien) in 14 Id. 229. 

T. Emott, SKY. Leg.' Obs. 337. Afl'd 

(Trusts and Trustees— investments) 4 Barb. 
626; where the opinion of the V. 0. is also 
reported. In King v. Talbot, 50 Id. 453, 
483, Sutherland, J., infers from the opin- 
ions in the above case, that the judges 
meant to approve of a rule which, as to 
public stocks, would exclude an investment 
in the stocks of any other State. 

v. , 4 Barb. 626. Disting'd (Trusts 

and Trustees — investments) as a case where 
there was no discretion, in Weston v. 
Ward, 4 Red/. 438. Collated with other 
cases in 13 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 201 ; where 
the rules in different States are given. Col- 
lated (Selection of securities by trustee) 
with other cases in other jurisdictions hold- 
ing a less strict rule, in Lamar v. Micou, 
112 V. S. 452, 468. 

T. Finch, 15 Wend. 652. Disting'd 

(Security for costs) and Bank of Michigan 
v. Jessup, 19 Id. 10, followed, — in Parks 
v. Goodwin, 1 Doug. {Mich.) 58. Explained 
in reference to the construction of L. 1831, 
c. 300, § 33, in Bates v. Relyea, 23 Wend. 
336. Collated with other cases (Attach- 
ment — non-residents) in Throop's Justice's 

. Manu. (2 ed.) 25. 

v. Gorton, 6 Hun, 301. Rev'd (Wills- 
vested remainders. Powers) in 67 K Y. 
63. 

T. Hunsicker, 21 Hun, 53. See Truscott 

v. King. Rev'd (Mortgage to secure future 
advances) in 85 K Y. 43. In Tompkins ». 
Little Rock & F't S. R'y, 15 Fed. Rep. 15, 
its doctrine applied to the case of a State 
binding itself to issue bonds in aid of a rail- 
road. 

Aekert v. Lansing, 59 K Y. 646 ; s. c. more 
fully as Ackart v. Lansing, 48 How. Pr. 
374. See further decision in 6 Hun, 476. 

v.'Pultz, 7 Barb. 386. Approved (De- 
livery of deed executed by husband and 
wife) in Baldwin v. Showden, 11 Ohio St. 
313 ; citing, also, Shoenberger v. Zook, 34 
Perm. 24. 

Ackley's Case. See Achley's Case. 

Acklcy v. Dygert, 33 Barb. 176. Appeal 
said in 30 How. Pr. 592>, n., to have been 
dismissed. See Throop's Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 2789, n. (Sale of decedent's real estate) 
The present statute gives power. Cited 
with other cases in Tyler Inf. & Con. (2 
ed.) § 54 ; as to when an infant is estopped 



by his acquiescence in an irregular sale of 
his lands. 

v. Kellogg, 8 Cow. 223. See Van Sant- 

voord, v. St. John, and St. John v. Van 
Santvoord. Discussed (Common carrier — 
responsibility beyond his own route) in 2 
Pars, on Contr. 213, n. Explained (Ter- 
mination of responsibility by delivery) in 
Ang. on Carr. (5 ed.) § 281. Collated (Car- 
rier — delivery) with other cases in 2 Red/. 
Am. Railw. vases, 61. 

v. Tarbox, 29 Barb. 512. Rev'd on 

the ground that the error was amendable, in 
31 N. Y. 564. 

v. , 31 K Y. 564. Followed 

(Amendments in justices' courts) in Lowe 
v. Rommell, 5 Daly, 17.. Explained (s. p.) 
in Lapham v. Rice, 55 N~. Y. 472, 477. Not 
authority on the question of joint legal 
rights averred in a complaint, — see Pom- 
eroy on Remedies, § 211, note 1. Disting'd 
(Amendment — power to substitute a party 
defendant) in N. Y. &c. Milk Pan Co. v. 
Remington's Agr. Works, 25 Hun, 475, 
(dissenting, opinion) 481 ; which see below. 

v. Westervelt, 10 Weekly Big. 391 ; 

mem. s. c, 21 Hun, 617. Afl'd (Former 
Adj. Land. & T. Coverture) in 13 Weekly 
Dig. 227 ; s. c, 86 K Y. 448. 

T. , 86 N. Y. 448. Quoted and dis- 
cussed (Married woman contracting with 
reference to separate estate) in Ben), on 
Sales (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.), § 36, n., 39, 49. 

Acorae v. American Mineral Co., 11 How. 
Pr. 24. See Getty v. Hudson River R. R. 
Co. Overruled in Dorman ■». Kellam, 14 
How. Pr. 184, as to the remedy in case of 
separate causes of action not being sepa- 
rately stated in a pleading. 

Adair v. Brimmer, 74 K Y. 539. See 
Clark v. Clark ; Cumberland Coal & Iron 
Co. v. Sherman ; Evarts v. Evarts. There is 
reported, in this case, in 95 N. Y. 35, a cross 
appeal from the judgment in 15 WeeMy 
Dig. 421, from which this also appeals. Ap- 
plied (Ratification by cestui qui trust of trus- 
tee's purchase must be with full knowledge 
of facts and of right to impeach sale in equity) 
in Luers v. Brunjes, 5 Red/. 32, 42. Disting'd 
(Liability of executor for error of judgment) 
in Weston v. Ward, 4 Id. 415, 437. Dis- 
ting'd (Executor's debt to estate) in Ban- 
cus e. Stover, 24 Hun, 109, 113 ; also on 
the reversal of s. c, in 89 K Y. 1, 8, in 
the dissenting opinion of Miller, J., — as 
inapplicable to the case presented. Said to 
have examined the subject of a trustee's duty 
and liability as to investing, in a most abla 
and masterly manner ; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 
649 n. Disting'd (Liability of trustee 
for default of co-trustee) in Dixon v. Storm, 
5 Red/. 419, 424. See cases collected by 
Arthur G. Sedgwick, in 15 Am. L. Rev. 
175, 179. Collated with others and relied 
on (Executor's liability for wasting estate) 
in Lacey v. Davis, 5 Red/. 301, 307. Relied 
on (Trustee's liability for negligence) in 
Storm, Matter of, 28 Hun, 499. Relied on 



ADAMS. 



(Trusts and Trustees — investments) in Mills 
u. Hoffman, 26 Id. 594, 600; (s. P., negli- 
gence) in Earle v. Earle, 48 Super. Ct. (J. 
■dbS.) 18,27. 

y. Lott, 3 Sill, 182. Disting'd (Seizin. 

Dower. Curtesy) in Gibbs v. Esty, 22 
Sun, 266, .269. 

Adams v. Alstyne, 25 N. Y. 236; and 
Wright v. Wright, 21 Conn. 329 ; are cited 
as authorities in Jones v. Perry, 50 N. S. 
134 ; as to when a new division of a fence 
between adjoining land-owners becomes 
necessary. 

v. Bissell, 28 Barb. 382. (An elaborate 

attempt at an analysis and definition of the 
question of joinder of causes of action) 
Pomeroy on Remedies, § 468. Disting'd 
(Joinder of a.) in Bonnell v. Wheeler, .1 
Sun, 336. 

T. Bush, 23 Sow. Pr. 262. Aff'd (New 

Trial — Ev., newly discovered and cumula- 
tive) in 2 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 104, — where, how- 
ever, the doctrine below was somewhat dis- 
approved, and the above affirmance by the 
majority was on the ground of the plaintiff's 
defective moving papers. 

v. Couover, 22 Sun, 424. See Par- 
sons v. Johnson. Aff'd (Deed — appurte- 
nances passing with; water privilege to 
mill-site) in 87 N. Y. 422, Disting'd and 
limited (Deed, with metes, bounds, and 
covenants — right to use of sewer) in Green 
•a. Collins, 86 XT. Y. 246; s. c, 13 Weekly 
Dig. 179; rev'g 20 Sun, 474; s. c, 40 
Am. R. 531, with note upon easements. 
Criticised in the last named note, at p. 279, 
and in Alb. L. J. 279. Compare Baker v. 
Bessey, 73 Me. 472 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 377, 
381. Collated, with Green t>. Collins, 86 
JT. Y. 246, and others, in 31 Moa/c. Eng. 
677, n. 

T. Curtis, 4 Lans. 164. Disting'd 

(Husb. & W. — who may sue for latter's 

' services) as a case where the husband was 
aware of the services; in Bean i>. Kiah, 
4 Sun, 171; s. c, 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
464; though relied on in the dissenting 
opinion of Boakdman, J., — who also says the 
principal case was approved by Perkins v. 
Perkins, 62 Barb. 531, 540. Not sustain- 
able except on the grounds taken in Hoge- 
boom's opinion, — see Perkins v. Perkins, 62 
Park 531, 540. Compared (Husb. & W.— 
validity of contracts between) in Van Order 
<D. Van Order, 8 Sun, 315. Explained and 
applied (Competency of wife to contract 
with husband) in Zimmerman v. Erhard, 
8 Paly, 311, 313; which is aff'd in 83-iV. Y. 
74. 

V.Davidson, 10 JT. Y. 309. See Vrooman 

v. King. Disting'd and doubted (Admis- 
sibility of declarations of assignor) in 
Bullis i>. Montgomery. 50 N. Y. 302 ; where 
it is thought .to have been doubted in Ony- 
lcr v. McCartney, 40 Id. 221 , 205 ; also (Ven- 
dor and Purchaser — and former's declara- 
tions) in Tabor «. VanTassell, 86 A". )'. 642, 
643. Disting'd (Admissibility of assig- 



nor's declarations) as a case where assignor 
continued in possession after the sale,— in 
Coyne o. Weaver, 84 Id. 386, 393. Also 
on same point and reasons, in Peck a. 
Crouse, 46 Barb, 151, 156. Also (Admis- 
sibility of declarations of assignor of an 
assign, for b. of c. — after its execution and 
delivery and entry of trustees) in Cuyler v. 
McCartney, 40 JV". Y. 221, 235. Also 
(Vend, and Pur. — and admissibility of form- 
er's declarations) as a case where assignor 
continued in possession after sale, — in 
Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 Id. 273, 277. Dis- 
ting'd and limited (Upon s. p.) as a case 
where vendor continued in possession, — 
in Roebur v. Bowe, 30 Sun, 379; and as 
not quite consistent with the principle which 
has been applied under like circumstances 
of continued possession when the subject 
of the sale has been real instead of personal 
property. Compare, in this connection, 
Abb. Trial Ev. pp. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 286, 
503, 740. 

v. Dyer, 8 Johns. 347; s. c, 5 Am. Dee. 

344, with note; where, as to priority of 
executions, it Is said to have been followed 
as an authority in the cases there cited. 
Cited, with Lemon v. Staats, 1 Cow. 592; 
and applied (Judgments — priority of; and 
fractional parts of a day) in Biggam v. Mer- 
ritt, Walker (Miss.) 430; s. c, 12 Am. Dec. 
576, with note. Thought in Metzler v. Kil- 
gore, 3 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 245 ; s. c, 23 Am. 
Dec. 76, 81, with note ; (Judgments — and 
priorities) not to be supported by Attor- 
ney General v. Andrew, Sardr. 23, on 
which the court relied. Collated (as to when 
courts will inquire into fractions of a day) 
with Lemon v. Staats, 1 Cow. 592 ; Small v. 
McChesney, 3 Id. 19; Rogers v. Beach, 18 
Wend. 533 ; People v. Central City Bank, 
53 Barb. 412 ; Safford v. Douglas, 4 Edio. 
Ch. 537; Fitch v. Smith, 10 Paige, 1; Clute 
«. Clute, 3 Denio, 263; s. c, 4 Id. 241; 
Blydenburgh «. Cotheal, 4 Corns. 418 ; s. c, 
5 Sow. Pr. 200 ; and Jones v. Porter, 6 Id. 
286 ; in a note by W. W. Thornton, to Ar- 
rowsmithc. Hormening, 23 Am. L. Reg. 258. 

v. Farmer, 1 E. D. Smith, 588. Ques- 
tioned (Harbor-master's discretion) in Hoeft 
v. Seaman, 38 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 62, 71. 

v. Fort Plain Bank, 23 Sow. Pr. 45. 

Rev'd on the ground that interest should 
have been allowed; but otherwise approved, 
in 36 N. Y. 255. 

- — v. , 36 N. Y. 255. Explained and 

compared (Interest) in White v. Miller, 78 
Id. 393, 396. Applied (Interest) in Prouty 
v. Mich. S. & N. Iud. R. R. Co., 1 Sun, 

' 655, 667; s. c. 4 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 230. 
Disting'd ([nterest) and its relations to 
other cases explained, in Gallup v. Perue, 
10 Sun, 525, 527. Relied on iu Gustine 
». Stoddard, 23 Sun, 101, and disting'd 
in Mygatt v. Wilcox, 45 N. Y. 306, as to 
when the statute of limitations begins to 
run against an attorney's claim for services. 
Relied on (Interest on attorney's fees) iu 



ADAMS. 



Jackson b. ft. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 
Supm. Ct. (T. & ft) 653, 656. 

v. Fox, 40 Barb. 442 ; s. c, differently 

reported, 27 How. Pr. 409. ' An appeal 
taken, was dismissed (as premature until 
final judgment. Jurisdiction) in 27 N. Y. 
640 ; subsequently the decision of the su- 
preme court was reversed (Joinder of ac- 
tions. Parties. Pleading) in 40 N. Y. 576. 

T. , 27 HT. Y. 640. Compare (What 

is final judgment) Weaver b. Barden, 49 A 7 ". 
Y. 286 ; rev'g in part, 3 Lans. 338. 

v. Freeman, 12 Johns. 408; s. c, 7 Am. 

Dec. 327, with note. Its dictum (Trespass 
ab initio) said in Dumont b. Smith, 4 Den. 
319, to be overruled by Allen ». Crofoot, 5 
Wend. 506, and Van Brunt v. Scheck, 13 
Johns. 414. 

v. Gilbert, 9 Wend. 499. Examined 

(Judgment of another State) with Jackson 
7>. Stewart, 6 Johns. 34; Denton b. Noyes, 
Id. 296 ; Green B. Ovington, 16 Id. 55 ; in 
Wilcox v. Kassick, 2 Mich. 177. 

v. Greenwich lus. Co., 9 Hun, 45. 

Affirmed (Ins. — waiver of condition. Wit- 

.« nesses) in 70 A 7 ". Y. 166. 

y. Hon n ess, 62 Barb. 326. Said in Pom- 

eroy on Remedies, % 239, note 10, to be a vir- 
tual repeal of the statute authorizing a mar- 
ried woman to maintain an action for ser- 
vices, and to be directly opposed to Brooks 
v. Schwerin, 54 A 7 ! Y. 343 ; Bean v. Kiah, 
6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 464, being also 
referred to as contrary. 

v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 252. See Hildreth 

t>. Ellice. Said to be a leading case, but dis- 
ting'd (Attorney not liable for Referee's fees. 
The doctrine of agency as applied to attor- 
neys) in Judson B. Gray, 11 jv. Y. 408 ; and 
as one which disregarded the doctrine, that a 
rule, which is in conflict with general princi- 
ples, should not be extended by analog}'. 
Followed in Van Kirk v. Sedgwick, 23 
Hun, 37, 39. Questioned, but followed, in 
Campbell v. Cothran, 56 A 7 ". Y. 279, 281. 
Disting'd (as an action of assumpsit by 
Sheriff against attorney) in Geib b. Topping, 
83 K Y. 46, 48. Opposed and disting'd 
with Ousterhout B. Day, 9 Johns. 114, 
in Wires v. Briggs, 5 Yt. 101 ; s. c, 26 Am. 
Dee. 284; and the Vermont rule preferred. 
Examined and collated (Attorney's liability 
for officer's fees) with Ousterhout v. Day, 
9 Johns. 114 ; Trustees of Watertown b. 
Cowen, 5 Pai. 510 ; Camp v. Carr, 6 Wend. 
535 ; Judson B. Gray, 11 A 7 ". Y. 408 ; Camp- 
bell v. Cothran, 56 Id. 279 ; in 27 Alb. L.J. 
124 ; the first three cases being approved 
in Tilton v. Wright, 74 Me. 214; s. c, 
22 Am. Law Beg. A 7 ". S. 460, with note. 
Quoted and collated with other cases in 
Smith on Sheriffs, 524. Disting'd (Sher- 
iff, when entitled to poundage) in Bowe b. 
Campbell, 2 Civ. Pro. It. (Browne) 232. 

v. Honghton, 3 Abb. Pi: N. S. 4G. 

Distinguished, but approved (Assignment 
for benefit of creditors) in Darrow v. 
Bruff, 36 How. Pr. 479. Said to apply only 



to such assignments as cannot be upheld 
unless executed by all the partners, in Nat- 
ional Bank v. Sackett, 2 Abb. Pr. K S. 286. 

y. Ives, 1 Hun, 457; s. c, 3 Swpm. Ct. 

{T. & C.) 471. Aff' d in 63 N. Y. 650. 

v. Leland, 5 Bosw. 411. Afl'd in 30 JST. 

Y. 309. 

v. , 30 N~. Y. 309. Commented upon 

(Bills, Notes, etc. — presentation of note for 
payment) in Bigel. on B. & N. (2 ed. ) 247 ; 
and is included in 2 Ames 1 Cases on B. & N. 
513. 

t. McPnrtlin. 11 Abb. A 7 . C. 369. 

Questioned (Foreclosure — prior incumbranc- 
ers as parties^ in 27 AV>. L. J. 80. 

v. Mills,' 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 16. 

Affd in 60 N. Y. 533. 

v. Nellis, 59 How. Pr. 385. Confirmed 

in effect, in 24 Hun, 605 ; (no opinion re- 
ported) which reversed another decision. 

v. Oaks, 20 Johns. 282. Followed in 

Torrington v. Norwich, 21 Conn. 549; as 
to the effect of an agreement whereby a par- 
ent seeks to release a child from his charge 
and conlrol. 

t. People, 3 Den. 190. AfTd in 1 XT. Y. 

173. See arguments of counsel in 1 How. 
App. Cos. 365. 

v. . 1 A 7 ! Y. 173. Explained (Evi- 
dence. Crimes — principal and accessory) in 
3 Greenleafon Ev. (14 ed.) § 46, note d., 50. 

T. , 3 Hun, 654. AfTd on the point 

last discussed in the opinion, without pass- 
ing on that stated in the head-note, in 63 A 7 ! 
Y. 621. 

v. , 63 A 7 ". Y. 621. Followed (Mo- 
tion to strike out denied because too broad) 
in Larkin b. Mitchell. &c. Lumber Co., 
(Mich. Supm. Ct. 1879,) 3 Northw. Rep. 
598, 604. . 

y. Perkins, 25 How. Pr. 368. Referred 

to in Hakes b. Peck, 30 Id. 104; as not hav- 
ing been affected by the amendment of Code 
Civ. Pro. § 307, subd. 7, in respect to the 
number of term fees in the court of ap- 
peals. 

b. Perry, 43 K Y. 487. Collated 

(Trusts. Charities) with other cases, in 
Gerard Titles to Real Est. (2 ed.) 305. 

T. Rivers, 11 Barb. 390. See DygertB. 

Schenck. Quoted and explained (Trespass. 
Damages — measure of) in Moak's Under hill's 
Torts, (1st Am. Ed.) 93. Explained and 
disting'd in Murray b. McShane, 52 Md. 217; 
s. c, 36 Am. R. 367, 370; as to what is not 
a trespass on the part of one traveling in the 
street. 

v. Roberts, 25 Bun, 118; mere mem. ; 

abridg't s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 462 ; more 
fully in 62 How. Pr. 253. 

v. Rockwell, 16 Wend. 285, 303. Dis- 
cussed (Estoppel in pais. Abandonment — 
loss of title by) in 3 Washb. on R. P. (4 
Ed.) 65, 76, 89. Confirmed in Van Wyck 
e. Wright, 18 Wend. 157,168. Commented 
on at length in Clark v. Wethey, 19 Id. 320. 
Applied in RatclifFe v. Gary, 4 Abb. Ct. App. 
Dec. 4 ; s. c, as Iiatclifl'e b. Gray, 3 Keyes, 



ADDERLY— ADRIAN CE. 



510, 514; Smith i>. McAllister, 14 Barb. 
434; Williams v. Montgomery, 10 Hun, 50. 
Applied, though limited, in Clark v. Baird, 
9 N. Y. 183, 204. Approved and applied in 
O'Donnell ». Kelsey, 4 Sandf. 202, 213. 
Disting'd on question of title in Terry 
v. Chandler, 16 N. Y. 354. Followed 
(Boundaries — acquiescence) in. Hunt v. 
Johnson, 19 Id. 279, 290, 291, in Miner v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 
171, 188. Said in Hubbell v. McCulloch, 
47 Barb. 287, not to have been overruled or 

v. Sage, 28 JT Y. 103. Disting'd in 

Baker v. Spencer, 47 JSf. Y. 564; as to 
when a right of action for fraud is not 
barred. 

v. Saratoga & Washington R. E. Co., 

11 Barb. 414. See Stanton ». Crosby. 
Ee'v'd (New Trial— E v.) 10 If. Y. 328. 
Overruled (as to point that ejectment would 
not lie) in Btz n. Daily, 20 Barb. 32. 

v. Sherrill, 14 How. Pr. 297. See 

Gay v. Paine. Followed (Pleading condi- 
tions precedent in action on promissory 
note) in Ferner v. Williams, 14 Abb. Pr. 
215, 219. 

v. Stevens, 26 Wend. 451. Followed 

(Remedies. Attorney's lien) in Knapp, 
Matter of, 85 N. Y. 284, 300. Disap- 
proved (Recovery by counsel of greater fees 
than allowed bv statute) in Major «. Gibson, 
1 Pat. &H. (Va.) 48, 81. 

v. Supervisors of Columbia, 8 Johns. 

323. Overruled (Mandamus to compel 
supervisors to audit expenses for mainte- 
nance of paupers), Exp. Overseers of Gates, 
4 Cow. 137. 

v. Yan Alstyne, 35 Barb. 9. Affi'd on 

somewhat different grounds, in 25 If. Y. 
23^ 

v. , 25 JV. Y. 232, 235*. Followed 

with Blain 0. Taylor, 19 Abb. Pr. 228 ; 
Duffy ». N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 2 Hilt. 
490 ; and other cases, in Bronson v. Coffin, 
108 Mass. 175; s. c, 11 Am. R. 335, 344; 
on the point that the right to require an 
adjoining land-owner to maintain a division 
fence runs with the land. 

— — t. Willoughby, 6 Johns. 65. Disting'd 
(Agreements to. refer to arbitration) in 
Gibbs v. Continental Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 
611, 617. 

v. Winne, 7 Paige, 97. Followed (Leg- 
acy — revocation) in Dowd's Will, 8 Abb. If. 

a us, 120, lsi. 

-Adderly v. Storm, 6 Hill, 624. Approved 
(Liability as stockholder) in Rosevelt v. 
Brown, 11 N. Y. 148. Disting'd (as not 
reaching a case where the creditor has 
the means of knowing by an examination 
of the books of the company whether the 
stock has been transferred) in Cutting v. 
Damerel, 88 N. Y. 410, 415; which dis- 
ting'd the Rosevelt Case, supra, and Munn 
v. Currie, 2 Barb. 21'4; also limiting the 
latter. 

Adding ton v. Allen, 11 Wend. 374. See 



Marsh v. Falker. See further proceedings, 
as Allen 0. Addington, 7 Wend. 2J5. Ex- 
plained and questioned in part, but fol- 
lowed (New Trial. Damages. Charge to 
jury) in Fry v. Bennett, 1 Abb. Pr. 289, 
302, 303. Followed (Pleading — practice) 
in Clark v. Dales, 20 Barb. 42, 66. Col- 
lated with others, and followed (Fraud — • 
intent. Pleading) in Wakeman v. Dalley, 
44 Id. 498, 501 ; and in Barber v. Morgan, 
51 Id. 116, 132 ; and in Zabriskie v. Smith, 
13 K Y. 322, 330. Disting'd and lim- 
ited (as a case where the point of intent 
was purely a question of pleading) in 
Gough v. St. John, 16 Wend. 646, 649. 
Followed (New Trial) in Thompson v. Peo- 
ple, 23 Id. 537, 604. ^Followed (Pleading. 
Cause of Action) in Wells v. Jewett, 11 
How. Pr. 242, 244. As to liability for recom- 
mendations for credit, collated with others 
in note to 25 Am. Dec. 447. 

Addison t. Bnrckmyer, 4 Sandf. Oh. 498. 
Discussed (Partnership — partner's interest 
in stock) in 1 Gollyer on Partn. (Wood's 
Am. Ed.) § 109, n. 2, p. 186. 

Adee T. Adee, 16 Hun, 46. See a further 
decision sustaining the undertaking, but on 
a different ground, in Toles n. Adee, 84 N. 
Y. 222. 

v. Bigler, 81 N. Y. 349. Applied (Rem- 
edy against fraudulent conveyance) in Bar- 
ton v. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467, 471. 

v. Campbell, 14 Hun, 551. Aff'd in 79 

If. Y. 52. See Foster v. Hawley. 

v. Cornell, 12 Weekly Big. 472 ; more 

fully, 25 Hun, 78. 

v. Demorest, 54 Barb. 433. Explained 

(Partnership — firm liability for individual 
partner's acts) in 1 Colly er on Part. ( Wood's 
Am. Ed.) § 414, n. 3, p. 657. 

— r— v. Howe, 15 Hun, 20. For charge of 
judge on second trial, see 59 How. Pr. 
459. 

Adkins v. Brewer, 3 Cow. 206. Examined 
(Liability of justice for exceeding his juris- 
diction) in Shadbolt v. Bronson, 1 Mich. 
87 ; citing Colvin 0. Luther, 9 Cow. 61 ; 
Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 Johns. 39 ; Lewis v. 
Palmer, 6 Wend. 367; Beach v. Botsford, 1 
Doug. 199 ; Wight «. Warner, Id. 384. 

Adolpli v. Central Park, North & East 
River R. R. Co., 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
186. Rev'd (Ev. — of negligence for jury) 
in 65 If. Y. 554. See further decision in 
43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 199 ; aff'd in 76 N. 
Y. 530. 

Adrianee v. Lagrave, 59 JT. Y. 110. See 
Adrience v. Lagrave, and Williams v. Bacon. 
Compare (Extradition) Pooley v. Whetham, 
22 Alb. L. J. 470; and note, p. 474. Cited 
in Commonwealth v. Hawes, 13 Bush (Ky.) 
697 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 243, 251 ; as to when 
a person extradited on account of one 
crime may be tried for another. 

v. Mayor, &c. of New York, 1 Barb. 19. 

Disapproved (Right of a tax-payer as such 
to maintain proceedings to restrain the ac- 
tion of the public authorities) with Brower 



8 



ADEIENCE— ^ETNA. 



v. The Same, 3 Id. 254; Christopher r>. 
The Same, 13- Id. 567 ; Milh;;u ». Sharp, 

15 Id. 193, and 17 /if. 435 ; Stuyvesant v. 
Pearsall, 15 Id. 244; De Baun v. Mayor, 
&c., 16 Id. 392; Wetmore v. Story, 22 Id. 
414 ; in Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome, 
18 IT. Y. 155, 163, and Roosevelt v. Draper, 

16 Sow. Pr. 137. Davis, v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 2 Duer, 663, being approved on this 
point. 

Adrience t. Lagrave, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 272 ; s. 
c, 47 Sow. Pr. 71. Rev'd as Bacharach v. 
Lagrave, 1 Sun, 689; s. c, 4 Supm. Gt. (T. 
& 0.) 215, and 47 Sow. Pr. 385 ; but this 
decision was in turn reversed as Adriance v. 
Lagrave, 59 JT. Y. 110; s. c, 17 Am. R. 
317. 

Adsit v. Adsit, 2 Johns. Oh. 448 ; s. c, 7 Am. 
Sec. 539, with note, wherein it is shown to 
have been extensively cited as an authority. 
Followed and approved (Legacy — when not 
considered in lieu of dower) in Gordon ». 
Stevens, 2 Sill Oh. (S. 0.) 46; s. c, 27 
Am. Dec. 445, with note. Approved (Dower 
— what provisions bar) with Sanford v. 
Jackson, 10 Pai. 266 ; Lewis v. Smith, 9 K 
Y. 502, 517 ; and Van Arsdalo v. Van Ars- 
dale, 2 Sutcher (JT. /.) 404. See Savage v. 
Burnham. 

— — v. Brady, 4 Sill, 630. See Mayor <o. 
Furze; Rochester White Lead Co. v. City 
of Rochester, and Weaver ». Devendorf. 
Followed (Officer's liability for consequences 
of negligence), in Connors «. Adams, 13 
Sun, 427; where it is said to have received 
emphatic approval in Robinson v. Chamber- 
lain, 34 N. Y. 389, by which (if shaken by 
Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 .y. Y. 
168, n.) it was restored to full vigor. Re- 
lied on in French v. Donaldson, 5 Lans. 293, 
and Conroy v. Gale, Id. 344 ; as applicable 
to the case of a canal contractor. Dis- 
ting'd (as a case where the injury was 
proximate and consequent) in Day v. Cross- 
man, 1 Sun, 572. Said in Clark v. Miller, 
47 Barb. 38, to have been, with Shepherd v. 

, Lincoln, 17 Wend. 250; Smith ®. .Wright, 
24 Barb. 170, and 27 Id. 621, —overruled, 
in substance, by Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, 29 
If. Y. 297, 311, 312, (where it is severely 
criticised) on the ground that defendants 
owed no duties to any individual; but com- 
pare Robinson n. Chamberlain, 34 N. Y. 389. 
And see Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 iV. Y. 113. 
Followed (Cause of Action. Pleading) in 
Griffith t>. Follet, 20 Barb. 620, 629. Fol- 
lowed (Officers. Munic. Corp. — Highways) 
in Smith v. Wright, 24 Id. 170, 172. Care- 
fully explained as to the obligation and duty 
of municipal corporations towards individ- 
uals, in Peck v. Village of Batavia, 32 
Id. 634, 639. with the opinion that existing 
doubts and questions arising from previous 
dicta and decisions, especially Adsit «. 
Brady, are settled to some extent by the 
case of Weet ». Trustees of Village of 
Brockport, 16 K Y. 161, 168, note In 
Robinson v. Chamberlain, 34 Id. 389, 391, 



it is said that that portion of the opinion in 
16 Id. 168, note, referring to Adsit e. Brady, 
was dictum. In French v. Donaldson, 57 
Id. 496, 498, which is aided by statutes, 
Adsit v. Brady is said to be followed and 
affirmed in Robinson v. Chamberlain. The 
reader will observe that while Peckuam, J., 
in the last named case, at p. 391, considers 
part of the Adsit case dictum, he yet ap- 
proves its rule of law ; and Hunt, J., at p. 
389, says it is authority ; and the three 
judges concur in an expression that, exclu- 
sive of judicial action, all officers are respon- 
sible, for a violation of official duty, to him 
who sustains special damage thereby. Dis- 
ting'd (Pleading) in Ryatt s. Trustees of 
Village of Rondout, UBarb. 385, 391. Fol- 
lowed (Munic. Corp. — Officers) in Hutson 
■b. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 K Y. 163, 169. 
Its principle applied to a case where the 
commissioner, though without funds, under- 
took to build; in Rector v. Pierce, 3 iV. 
Y. Supm. Ct. (T. & O.) 416. Disting'd 
with Robinson n. Chamberlain (Officers — 
judicial acts; duty to public) in East River 
Gas Light Co. v. Donnelly, 93 N. Y. 557- 
561. Collated with other cases in Cooh 
Sighw. L. (4 ed.) 48, 49. 

v. Wilson, 7 Sow. Pr. 64. Followed in 

Kasson v. Mills, 8 How. Pr, 377, on the 
point that on appeal from a judgment of a 
justice's court to the county court, the judg- 
ment cannot be reviewed on questions of 
fact arising from the evidence. 

Aeby v. Rapelye, 1 Sill, 9. Explained (Evi- 
dence — quantum of, in civil cases) in John- 
son v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Sun, 251, 
253. Disapproved, with Holmes v. Wil- 
liams, 10 Paige, 326; Jones v. Hake, 2 
Johns. Oas. 60; Wilkie.fl. Roosevelt, 3 Id. 
66; Munn v. Commission Co., 15 Johns. 44; 
Powell ». - Waters, 17 Id. 176; Cram v. 
Henricks, 7 Wend. 569; Dowe v. Schutt, 2 
Sen. 621 ; Dix v. Van Wyck, 2 Sill, 522; 
Holford v. Blatohford, 2 Sandf. Oh. 140; 
Bossange *. Ross, 29 Barb. 576 ; Catlin v. 
Gunter, 11 N. Y. 368; Clark v. Sisson, 22 
Id. 312, and other cases ;— and Jackson v. 
Fassitt, 33 Barb. 645, being with other 
cases, approved, in Dickerman v. Day, 31 
Iowa, 444; s. c, 7 Am. £. 156; on the 
point that the defense of usury is not avail- 
able in an action against the accommoda- 
tion maker of a note, by a purchaser in 
good faith from the payee at a greater dis- 
count than legal interest, unless such pur- 
chaser had knowledge of its character. 

.Etna Fire Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend, 385 ; 
s. c, 30 Am. Bee. 90, with note; where it 
is said to be regarded by many cases there 
collated as an authority both in X. Y. and 
elsewhere on its various points respecting 
insurance. See Iuman «. Western Fire Ins. 
Co., and Robert v. Trader's Ius. Co. Lim- 
ited (Mortgagee, who has insured his inter- 
est, may recover for loss, without first ex- 
hausting his remedy dn the mortgage) in 
Excelsior Fire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co.. 55 



./ETNA INS. CO.— AGAWAM BANK. 



'9 



IT. 7. 343, 356. Explained (Insurer's 
right to be subrogated) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 
440, n. t. Examined, with O'Neil «. Buf- 
falo Fire Ins. Co., 3 N. 7. 122 (Waiver of 
defect in proofs required by insurance pol- 
icy) in Troy Eire Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 
Wise. 26. Approved (Upon the point that 
defects in proofs of loss may be waived by 
the silence or conduct of the underwriters) 
with Dawes v. North River Ins. Co., 7 Cow. 
462; in St. Louis Ins. Co. i>. Kyle, 11 Mo. 
278 ; s. c, 49 Am. Dec. 74-73, with note. 
Followed (s. p.) with Peacock «. N. Y. 
Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 338 ; in Jones *. Mechan- 
ics' Fire Ins. Co., 36 N. J. (7 Vroom) 29 ; 
s. c, 13 Am. R. 405, 411, 414; Kimball v. 
Hamilton Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 495 ; being dis- 
tinguished in this respect. Cited as authority 
(Ins. — and What is solo ownership of prop- 
erty for the purpose of obtaining insurance 
thereon) in Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. i>. 
"Weill, 28 Oratt. ( Va.) 389 ; s. c, 26 Am. 
S. 364. Followed (Ins. — that one in pos- 
session of real estate under a contract of 
purchase, has an insurable interest) in 
Franklin Fire Ins. Co: v. Martin, 11 Vroom 
(K J.) 568; s. c, 29 Am. R. 271, 273. 
Followed (Ins. — insurable interest) in Acer 
1). Merchant's Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 68, 82. 
Eelied on (Ins. — waiver of defects in pre- 
liminary proofs) and collated with others 
to same effect, in Kimball v. Hamilton Fire 
Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 495, 501. Approved (Ins. 
— subrogation and remedy over) in Pentz v. 
Receivers of .JStna Fire Ins. Co., 3 Edw. 
Oh. 341, 344. Relied on (Insurable inter- 
est — assignment) in Manley 1>. Ins. Co. of 
N. A., 1 Lans. 20, 30. Relied on (Re-insur- 
ance — construction of clause in restraint of; 
insurer's interest) in Mutual Safety Iris. Co. 
v. Howe, 2 J 7 ". 7. 235, 242. Approved (Ins. 
— waiver of defects in preliminary proof) 
in O'Niel v. Buffalo Fire Ins. Co., 3 Id. 122, 
128. Approved (Subrogation — its applica- 
tion to insurance) in Connecticut Fire Ins. 
Co. v. Erie Railw. Co., 10 Bun, 59, 61 ; 
but see Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 jf. 7. 
454, 466, where its doctrine as to subrogation 
is not conceded, and that case is distin- 
guished therefrom as not within it. Ap- 
proved and relied on with others (Waiver 
of defeots in preliminary proofs) in Miller v. 
Eagle Life & Health Ins. Co., 2 E D. Smith, 
268, 2«6. Disting'd (What constitutes a 
trust) as a case of a direction merely, and 
of special circumstances fully disclosed in 
the opinion, — in Rogers Locomotive, &c. 
Works ->. Kelley, 88 N. 7. 234, 239. 

Etna Ins. Co. r. Aldrich, 26 N. 7. 92. 
Rev'd (Validity of mortgage on ship) in U. 
S. Supreme Court, 8 Wall. 491. See Lunt 
v. B'k of North America ; Commercial B'k 
v. Hughes, and Oneida Central B'k. Ex- 
plained (Conflict of Law.) in Nichols v. 
Mase. 25 Sun, 640, 641. 

v. Wheeler, 5 Lans. 480. Aff'd in 49 

N. 7. 616. See Van Santvoord v. St. John. 

v. , 49 IT. 7. 616. Followed (Liabil- 



ity of carrier) in Edsall v. Camden & Aniboy 
R. R. & Trans. Co., 50 JST. 7. 661. 
Etna Nai'l B'k v. Fourth Natl B'k, 46 K 

7. 82. Disting'd (Right of depositor) in 
Van Alen v. American Nat'l B'k, 52 N. 7. 
1. Disting'd (as a case of direction merely, 
proceeding upon special circumstances) in 
Rogers' Locomotive, &c. Works «. Kelley, 
88 K 7. 234, 239. Followed (Grantee's 
liability to lienor) in Pardee v. Treat, 82 N. 7. 
385, 392. See cases reviewed (Payment of- 
notes payable at bank) in 17 Alb. L. J. 500. 
Cited asauthority (Bills N. & C.) with Nat'l 
B'k of Fishkill t. Speight, 47 N. 7. 668 : 
in Bank v. Henninger, (Penn. April, 1884,) 
1 Am. L. J.; s. c, 15 Pittsb. L. J. 114. See 
(Rights of payee of unaccepted check 
against drawee) Union Nat'l B'k v. Oceana 
County B'k, 80 III. 212; s. c, 22.4m. R. 
185, and cases cited in note; also 13 Am. 
R. 752, 71. 

African Society v. Varick, 13 Johns. 38. 
Explained (Necessity that a corporation 
should act by its corporate name) in Glass 
«. Tipton, &c. Turnp. Co.. 32 Ind. 376. 
Cases collected (Devise or purchase for un- 
incorporated society) in 12 Am. L. Reg. N. 

8. 354, note. 

Agan v. McManus, 11 Johns. 180. See Berry 
7J. Robinson. 

Agate v. King, 17 Abb. Pr. 15!'. Disap- 
proved (Counter-claim in foreclosure) in 
Seligman v. Dudley, 14 Hun, 186. Disting'd 
(As a case of counter-claim, not of defenses) 
in Smith v. Hathorn, 25 Hun, 15», 162. 

v. Lowenbein (No. 1), 4 Daly, 62 ; sub- 
sequent decision at p. 262, was rev'd in 57 
N. 7. 604; subsequent appeal as Agate v. 
Morrison, in 12 Week. Dig. 254 ; s. c, 84 AT, 
7. 672, which, see below, afFg 6 Daly. 
291. 

v. , 57 -V 7. 604. (Right to mate- 
rials) Compare Morgan v. Stevens, 6 Alb. 
JST. G. S56, 357, n. 

v. Morrison. 12 Week Dig. 254: less 

fully, 84 J 7 ! 7. 672; afFg 6 Daly, 291. ' The 
case is reported on a former appeal in 57 
JT. 7. 604, as Agate v. Lowenbein, which 

SC6 SLUOVC 

v. Sands, 8 Daly, 66. Aff'd in 73 K 7. 

620; mem. of opinion. 

Agawam Bank v. Strever, 16 Barb. 82. It 
seems this cause was tried three times. 
After the first, when plaintiffs recovered, a 
new trial was ordered, 16 Barb. 82. After 
another trial, on which plaintiff was non- 
suited, the cause was carried to the court of 
appeals, and a new trial again ordered (see 
18 N. 7. 511), which decision, however, is 
not reported ; and after another trial, when 
plaintiff recovered again, the cause was car- 
ried to the court of appeals, and the judg- 
ment affirmed, which decision is reported, 
18 K 7. 502. 

V. , 18 J 7 ! 7. 502. Approved and 

followed (Admissibility of extrinsic evi- 
dence to explain a contract) with Hinton v. 
Locke, 5 Sill, 4U7 ; in Goodrich r. Stevens, 



10 



AGNEW— ALBANY & VT. K. E. CO. 



5 Lana. 230. Contra, Walker v. Crawford, 
00 III. 444; s. c, 8 Am. II 701. But see 
Abb. Tr. Ev. 412. Explained and followed 
(Accommodation note) in Berenbroick v. 
Stephens, 8 Daly, 249. 250. Collated 
(Guaranty — covering successive sales) with 
other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 
(5 ed.) 140. 

Agnew, Matter of, 4 Hun, 435. AfFd, it 
seems, in 63 N~. Y. 635 ; but no opinion. 

Agnirre v. Allen, 10 Barb. 74. AfE'd in 7 
N. T. 543. 

Ahern v. Goodspeed, 9 Hun, 263. Aff d in 
72 W. Y. 108. 

v. , 72 K Y. 108. See Nelson v. 

Cowing. Followed. (Morgagor, when es- 
topped by statements made by mortgagee 
acting as his agent) in Piatt r. Newcomb, 
27 Hun, 186 ; as overruling N. Y. Life 
Ins. Co. v. Beebe, 7 K Y. 364. Explained 
(Sales. Warranty) in Ben), on Sales {Gor- 
birts-ith Am. Ed.) vol. 2, § 945, note 16. 

v. Nat'l Steamship Co.. 39 How. Pr. 

403; s. a, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 283. Overruled 
on re-argument, in Same v. Same, 3 Daly, 
399; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. IT. 8. 356. 

v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 9 Abb. Pr. 

N. 8. 69. Contra (Costs on appeal) Van 
Alen v. American Nat'l B'k, 10 Abb. Pr. Jf. 
8. 331. See Throop's Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 3239, note. 

Ahrenfcldt v. Ahrenfeldt, 1 Hoff. Cli. 47. 
Quoted (Divorce — intent to desert) in 1 
Bish. on Mar. & D. (6 ed.) § 784. Dis- 
cussed (Custody of children, as between 
parents) with many authorities, in 2 Kent 
Com. 195, n. c. Cited (Parent & child) 
with Mcrcein v. People, 25 Wend. 64, and 
3 Hill, 399; in Tyler Inf. & Cov. (2 ed.) 
§ 183, as holding . the same rule as that 
recognized by the courts of England. 

Aiken v. Albany, V't & Canada R. R. 
Co., 26 Barb. 289. Disting'd (Corp.— the 
effect of dissolution upon its property) as 
deciding other and entirely different ques- 
tions, — in Owen®. Smith, 31 Barb. 641, 647. 

v. Benedict, 39 Bwrb. 400. Followed 

(Ejectment to prevent encroachment) in 
Vrooman v. Jackson, 6 Hun, 326. Collated 
(Nuisance) with other cases in McAdam 
Land. & T. (2 ed.) § 163, 370. Ex- 
plained in Wood on Nuisances (2 ed.) §§ 98, 
100, 104, 107. 

v. Buck, 1 Wend. 466; s. c, 19 Am. 

Dec. 535, with note. 

v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482. Approved 

(Laborers, &c, their lien) in Balch o. N. Y. 

6 Oswego Midland B. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 
521, 525. Disting'd (Master & servant) 
in Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Barb. 294. 
Compare Coffin v. Reynolds, 37 i^. Y. 640. 
Applied (Manuf. Comp. — servant; laborer) 
in Dean v. De Wolf, 16 Hun, 186; and in 
Coffin v. Reynolds, 37 H. Y. 640, 644 (R. 
R. & R. R. Cos. — laborer), in Balch v. N. 
Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co., 46 Id. 
521, 525. Relied. on (Manuf. Comp. — who 
servant of) in Hill v. Spencer, 61 Id. 274. 



Limited (s. p.) in Hovey v. Ten Broeck, 3 
Bobt. 316, 320. Disting'd (R. R. & R. 
R. Co's— employee ; claim of counsel) in 
Guruey v. Atlantic & Gt. W. Ry. Co., 58 
N. Y. 358, 367, and (Mech. Liens — laborers 
or servant) in Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 jV. Y. 
50, 53; s. c, 32 Am. B. 262, with perti- 
nent note ; and (Manuf. Corp. — laBorer, 
servant) in Short v. Medberry, 29 Hun, 39 ; 
and, with others, (Manuf. Corp. — miner's 
lien) in Mining Co. v. Cullins, 104 U. 8. 
(14 Otto) 176. 
Aikin v. Western R. R. Co., 20 K Y. 370. 
Discussed (Private Corp. — Powers relating 
to property) in Any. and A. on P. Con. 

11 ed. § 154. Disting'd (Ferry franchise 
invaded, by ferry maintained by a rail- 
road company for transport of any per- 
sons, whether its passengers or not) in 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. New England Trans- 
fer Co., 14 Blatchf. C. Ct. 159, 168. 

Ainsley v. Mead, 3 Lans. 116. Disting'd 
(Liability of married woman) in Treman 
v. Allen, 15 Hun, 4; Husted v. Mathes, 
77 H. Y. 388, 390. 

Ainslie v. Boynton, 2 Barb. 258. (Not au- 
thority for upholding the attorney's lien 
against an action for a set-off.) Martin v. 
Kanouse, , 9 Abb. Pr. 370, note; s. c, 17 
How. Pr. 146. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Barb. 177. 

Opposed (Judgment not conclusive against 
landlord) in Valentine v. Maheny, 37 C'al. 
389. Followed (Recovery in action for 
mesne profits) jn Boardway v. Scott, 31 
Hun, 378. 

T. Wilson, 7 Cow. 662; s. c, It Am. 

Dec. 532. Contra (Pleading — What will 
sustain recovery under money counts) 
Stroud v. Pierce, 6 Allen, 413. See also 
Abb. Tr. Ev. 263. Followed (Pleading. 
B. N. etc. — Recovery under money counts) 
in Frazer •». Carpenter, 2 McLean, 237. Said 
in 17 Am. Dec. 537, n., to have been fre- 
quently relied on as authority. 

Aitken v. Clark, 15 Abb. Pi: 319. Further 
decision on demurrer to answer, 16 Id. 328, 
note. 

Akerley t. Haines. 2 Gai. 292. Confirmed 
in Coon v. Moffett, 2 Penn. (2V. /.) 583 ; 
s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 392, 399, with extended 
note; as to the loss of service being the 
ground of an action for seduction. 

Akin v. Western R. R., 30 Barb. 305. Rev'd 
(Ferries — Restriction as to R. R. and R. R. 
Co.'s franchise therefor) in 20 H. Y. 370. 

Akrill v. Seldon, 1 Barb. 316. Applied (No 
injunction granted to restrain trespass, un- 
less injury irreparable) in Troy & Boston R. 
R. Co. v. Boston & Hoosac T. & Western 
R'y Co., 86 IT. Y. 107, 126 ; different pro- 
ceeding 13 Hun, 60; and 57 How. Pr. 181. 

Albany & Schnectady R. R. Co. v. Osborn, 

12 Barb. 223. Dissented from (R. R. & R 
R. Co.'s. — and taxation of their real estate) 
in People «. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 181. 

Albany & Vermont R. R. Co. t. People, 16 
Hun, 126 ; rev'd in 77 H. Y. 232. 



ALBANY— ALBANY. 



11 



Albany & West Stockbridge R. R. Co. t. 

Cady, 6 Hill, 265. Explained (Several 
bills of costs) in Williams v. Cassady, 22 
Hun, 180, 183. 

Albany City B'k t. Scliermerhoru, Clarke, 
303, with note. Eev'd (Officers — Contempt 
of sheriff. Receivers proceedings by at- 
tachment. Defective order) in 9 Pai. 
372; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 551, with note; 
where the decretal order is rev'd and the 
proceedings remitted to the vice-chancellor 
■with directions, and whose subsequent and 
unreported decision it apparently is which 
is rev'd (the chancellor on the facts there 
appearing being satisfied that the receiver's 
possession had not been disturbed) in 10 
Pai. 263; where the chancellor said that if 
the facts had appeared when the case was 
formerly before him on appeal, he should 
have directed the sheriffs to have been dis- 
missed without further useless expense. 

v. , 9 Pai. 372. See preceding 

case. See Bergh's case, in the note to 38 
Am. Dec. 558. It is said to have been fre- 
quently cited in N. Y. and elsewhere, chiefly 
on questions of practice; and to have been 
followed (Contempt proceedings) in Poertner 
v. Russell, 33 Wise. 201 ; Witter v. Lyon, 84 
Id. 578 ; and Mann v. Brophy, 38 Id. 426. 
Disting'd and explained (Creditors' suit. Re- 
demption) in Farnham v. Campbell, 10 Pai. 
598. Distg'd and criticised (Contempt — 
necessity of personal service) in Pitt v. Davi- 
son, 37 Barb. 97, 108. Distg'd as to facts, 
but relied on (Contempt — correct procedure 
and service) in Smethurst, Matter of, 4 How. 
Pr. 369. Relied on (s. p. and as to suffi- 
ciency of service) in Clark v. Bininger, 43 
Super. Gt. (J. & 8.) 126. Relied on (Con- 
tempt — propriety of personal service) in 
Fischer v. Raab, 56 Id. 219. Explained 
(Contempt) with reference to the statute 
under which decided, in Woods v. De Fig- 
aniere, 16 Abb. Pr. 1, 7. Explained (Con- 
tempt — as to service, whether personal or 
upon attorney) in Pitt «. Davison, 3 Abb. Pr. 
N. 8. 398. Relied on (Contempt proceed- 
ings — and construction of the statute as to 
costs, expenses, &c. thereunder) in Sudlow 
v. Knox, 7 Id. 411, 419. Reviewed (col- 
lating and reconciling the cases, upon s. P., 
and as to exercise of discretionary powers 
in cases of civil and criminal contempts) in 
People v. Compton, 1 Duer, 512, 523. Re- 
viewed, with others, as to construction of 
and compliance with statute under which 
contempt proceedings are initiated, as to 
procedure, &c, in dissenting opinion to 
Nichols, Matter of, 54 N. Y. 62, 73. Quoted 
from (Contempt — receiver's proceedings for) 
in Bowery Sav'gs B'k v. Richards, 6 8upm. 
Gt. (T. & 0.) 59. Quoted (Executors en- 
forcing final surrogate's decree) in Willard 
on Executors, 439. But distinguished as 
being a proceeding in a court of record, by 

, an order to show cause, under section 5 of 
the statute, and to that extent inapplicable 
to surrogate's courts, though relied on as to 



its application, of those sections as to the 
necessity of filing interrogatories, in con- 
tempt procedure, —in Watson, Matter of, 
3 Lans. 408, 412, 415. The reader will per- 
ceive that this last distinguishing criticism 
loses its force under the present Code Gin. 
Pro. § 2, which makes a surrogate's court in 
each county a court of record. 

y. , 10 Pai. 263. See the two pre- 
ceding cases. 

Albany City Sav'gs Inst. v. Bnrdick, 20 Hun, 
104. Rev'd (Foreclosure. Reformation of 
instrument) in 87 N. Y. 40. The case of 
Albany Sav'gs Bk. v. Martin, 56 How. Pr. 
500, involves like questions. 

v. , 87 N. Y. 40. Approved and 

followed (Negligence in execution in execu- 
tion of instrument) in Silbar v. Ryder ( Wise. 
1885), 23 Northw. Rep. 106, 108. 

Albany Dutch Church v. Vedder, 14 Wend. 

165. See People v. Jansen. Followed 

(Sureties) in McKecknie v. Ward, 58 N. 

Y. 541, 549; in Atlantic & Pacific Tel. 

Co. ». Barnes, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 40, 

45. 
Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 4 Barb. 407. 

Aff'd as Fireman's Ins. Co. of Albany v. 

Bay, in 4 N. Y. 9, though generally cited as 

first reported. Cited (H. & W.) in Willard's 

Hq'ty Jurisprudence, 640. Relied on (Husb. 

& W.) in Cramer v. Comstock, 11 How. 

Pr. 486. 

v. , 4 $~. Y. 9. Approved (Con- 
veyance by Married Woman) in De Pierres 
v. Thorn, 4 Bosw. 266, 293, 294, 296 ; and 
see Winans v. Peebles, 31 Barb. 371, 376. 
Approved (as to power to sell not including 
power to mortgage), with Coutant v. Servos:*, 
A Id. 128 ; in Trouch v. Bunnell, Supm. Ct. 
Oregon (M'ch, 1883), 4 Pacific Pep. 590. 
Relied on (Husb. & W.) 11 How. Pr. 486. 
Cited (Husb. & W.) as settling the doubts 
as to a married woman's powers to convey 
her separate estate by deed without the con- 
currence of her husband, — in Colvin v. Cur- 
rier, 22 Barb. 371, 3S1. 

Albany Northern R. R. Co. v. Brownell, 24 
N. Y. 345. Followed (Compensation) in 
Boston & A. R. R. Co. v. Village of Green- 
bush, 52 K Y. 510, 511. Disting'd (In- 
junction to restrain commissioners from 
opening highway) in Prospect Park & C. I. 
R. R. Co. v. Williamson, 24 Hun, 216, 218. 
Disting'd (as to when an amendment to the 
charter of a corporation is permissible) in 
Detroit v. Detroit & Howell Plank Road 
Co., 43 Mich. 146, 147. 

v. Lansing. 16 Barb. 68. Applied (Dam- 
ages for land taken for railroad') in Hender- 
son v. N.Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 K Y. 
423, 433. Disapproved (Eminent domain, — 
and rule of compensation) in Utica, &c. 
R. R. Co., Matter of, 56 Barb. 456; and 
likewise, on s. P. in N.Y., Lackawanna, &c. 
R. R. Co., Matter of, 29 Hun, 1. 

Albany Street. Matter of. 11 Wend. 149; 
s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 618, with note containing 
numerous citations of the case on the points 



12 



ALBERT— ALEXANDER. 



decided respecting eminent domain. See 
Beekman i>. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. 
Co. Qualified (Eminent domain) in Embury 
'■». Conner, 3 AT. Y. 511. Followed (Eminent 
domain — limits upon a city's exercise there- 
of), with John and Cherry Streets, Matter 
of, 19 Wend. 659; in Bradshaw ». Omaha, 
1 Neb. 16. Explained, with Beekman Street, 
Matter of, 4 Brad/. 503 ; in Evergreen Ceme- 
tery Ass'n ». City of New Haven, 43 Conn. 
234; s. c, 21 Am. R. 643, 645, with note. 
Explained in 3 Washb. on R. -P.(4th ed.), 214. 
Quoted (Eminent domain) in Cooley on Con- 
stitutional Lim. (5th ed.), 670, n. 1. Dis- 
ting'd (Eminent domain — rule of damages) 
with Wyman v. Mayor, 1 1 Wend. 486 ; Matter 
ofFurmanSt.,lTM 649; Matter of William 
etc. Sts., 19 Id. 678; Matter of John etc. 
^ Sts., Id. 659; Matter of Wall St,lV Barb. 639, 
^ — in Munson, Matter of, 29 Hun, 335. Cited 
(Constitutionality of act) in Heath v. Hub- 
bell, 6 Daly, 183, 186. Followed (Eminent 
domain), with Owners of Grounds, &c. v. 
Mayor, &c. of Albany, 15 Wend,. 374, in 
City of Bridgeport v. N. Y. & New Haven 
R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 63, 
70, — as to land improperly assessed for 
benefits. 

Albert v. Bleecker St. R. E., 2 Daly, 389. 
Explained (Negligence — untied horse) in 
Gottwald v. Bernheimer, 6 Daly, 212, 
214. 

Alcock t. Giberton, 5 Duer, 76. See Van 
Marter v. Babcock. Recognized as authority 
(Contracts — validity of provisions) in Arnot 
■o. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 2 Run, 591, 
594. Not authority that it was necessary 
to allege that- the art and mystery sold 
was a secret. Hard v. Seeley, 47 Barb. 
428. 

Alden t. Clark, 11 How. Pr. 209. Disap- 
proved (Execution cannot issue after the 
death of the defendant, without leave of the 
court) as a dictum in Flanagan v. Tinen, 53 
Barb. 587. Contra, Marine Bank v. Van 
Brunt, 61 Barb. 361. 

v. N. Y. Cent. B. B. Co., 26 N. Y. 102; 

s. c, 3 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 498. (Carriers 
of passengers — duty to provide safe vehicles.) 
Criticised and disapproved in McPadden v. 
N.Y. Cent. R. B. Co., 44 N. Y. 478; but 
considered as authority for cases coming 
directly within it ; also distinguished. Lim- 
ited in Carroll v. S. I. R. R. Co.., 58 N. Y. 
126, 139. Questioned in Readhead «. Mid- 
land R'y Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 392; s. c, 1 Alb. 
L. J. 318. Denied in Meier v. Pennsylvania 
R. R. Co., 64 Penn. St. 229. Collated, with 
other cases in reporter's note, 31 Am. R. 
324; and said to be no longer law in N.Y. 
Included with notes in 2 Red/. Am. Railw. 
Cases, 418. Quoted and collated with other 
cases in 1 Id. 482. 

Alderman v. Tirrell, 8 Johns. 418. Fol- 
lowed (appearance of infant plaintiff or de- 
fendant) iu McMurray v. McMurray, 60 
Barb. 117. 

Aldrich v. Manton, 13 Wend. 458. Over- 



ruled (Aliens — power to convey) in Duke of 
Cumberland v. Graves, 7 N. Y. 305. 

v. Reynolds, 1 Barb. Ch. 613. Followed 

(Mortgagor's liability for rents, &c.) in Holt- 
haus v. Hart, 9 Mo. App. 3. 

T. Sager, 9 Hun, 337. Collated with 

Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 526; Jackson v. 
Brookins, 5 Bun, 534 ; . Baker v. Pope, 2 Id. 
556; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 8 Id. 16; Mead v. 
Stratton, Id. 151 ; Hayes v. Phelan, 4 Id. 
733; 5 Id. 335; and other cases, in 25 Am. 
R. 362, n., as to the statutory liability for 
injuries arising from the sale, &c, of intoxi- 
cating liquors. 

Alexander's Will, Matter of, 16 Abb. Pr. 
(N. 8.) 9. See Hartnett v. Wandell. Aff'd 
(Wills — delegation by of power to appoint 
executor) in 60 N. Y. 346; s. c, 16 Abb. Pr. 
(N. S.) 383; and 19 Am. R. 194, which 
rev'd 2 Hun, 552 ; s. c, 5 Supm. Ct. (T. S 
C.) 98. 

Alexander v. Bennett, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 
S.) 492. Rev'd (Removal of Causes. Const. 
L.) in 00 N. Y. 204. Opposed (Appeal- 
right of on order involving constitutional 
questions and affecting substantial rights) 
in De Hart v. Hatch, 6 Supm. Ct. {T. & 
C. 186; s. c, 3 Hun, 375. 

v. , 60 N. Y. 204. This opinion is 

also reported in 6 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 193, 
n. Explained (Removal of Cases. Const. 
L.) in Heath v. Hubbell, 6 Daly, 183, 185. 
Disting'd (Where parties consented) in An- 
derson v. Reilly, 60 N. Y. 191. 

v. Chamberlain, 1 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 

600. See Jackson v. Browner. 

v. Dutcher, 7 Hun, 439. Aff'd in 70 

N. Y. 385. 

v. Esten, 1 Gai. 152. Explained (M. 

&. 0. — granting relief not asked for) in 
Jones ». Cook, 11 Hun, 230. 

v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 655; 

s. c, 5 Supm. Ct. (T. & C), 208. Rev'd 
(on both points) in 66 V. Y. 464. 

T. , 66 N. Y. 464; s. c, 23 Am, R. 

76, with note. That this case has been 
overruled (Ins. — knowledge, of insurer's 
agent) by Van Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. 
Co., 68 V". Y. 434,— see Broadhead v. Ly- 
coming Fire Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 452; Chase 
». People's Fire Ins. Co., Id. 456. Disting'd 
(Ins. — condition as to agent) in Whited v. 
Germania Fire Ins. Co., 76 N. Y. 415, 419. 
Disting'd ("Building occupied as a dwell- 
ing ") in Woodruff v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 
83 N. Y. 133, 140. 

v. Greene, 3 Hill, 9. See Hollister v. 

Nowlen. Rev'd (Carriers — liability for neg- 
ligence under contract to tow a boat) in 
7 Hill, 533 ; and see Wells v. Steam Navi- 
gation Co., 2 N. Y. 204; 8 N. Y. 375. 
Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. (5 ed.) § 916, 
n. 1, 78. Explained in Ang. on Carr. § 59 ; 
(5 ed. ) §§ 59, 668. Quoted and explained in 
2 Pars on Contr. 170, n. r. Disting'd (as to 
the mode of employment) with Caton u. 
Rumney, 13 Wend. 387; Wells v. Steam 
Navigation Co., 2 N. Y. 207. 



ALEXANDER— ALLCOTT. 



13 



v. , 7 Hill, 533. Followed (Car- 
riers — liability for negligence under con- 
tract to tow a boat) with other cases in 
Bussoy v. Mississippi Valley Transportation 
Co., 24 La. Ann. Ifi5; s. c, 13 Am. R. 120. 

v. Hard, 42 How. Pr. 131. Corrected 

on p. 384 of same vol. 

v. Hoyfc, 7 Wend. 89. Overruled (Trus- 
tee's liability) in Hill v. Sellick, 21 Barb. 
207. (Not an authority that entire judg- 
ment may be reversed as to one defendant, 
and affirmed as to another.) Cruikshank v. 
Gardner, 2 Hill. 333. 

■ v. Sim Mut. Ins. Co., 49 Barb. 475. 

Rev'd (unless plaintiff should consent to 
a reduction of his recovery) in 51 If. Y. 
253. 

v. , 51 K Y 253. Disapproved, 

with Schmidt v. United Ins. Co., 1 Johns. 
249, in Matbeson v. Equitable Marine Ins. 
Co., 118 Mass. 209; s. c, 19 Am. R. 441, 
445, — in so far as they conflict with the 
doctrine holding a marine insurer liable not 
only for a total loss, but for a partial loss, 
repaired before the happening of the total 
loss, — Barker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 
307, 318, being cited as overruling Schmidt 
v. United Ins. Co., above. 

Alexander Presb. Ch. v. The Presb Ch., 46 
How. Pr. 312. Afi'd in 64 If. ¥.■ 274. 

Alfaro T. Davidson, 39 Super. Gt. {J. & 8) 
408. See further proceedings in Id. 463, 
and 40 Id. 87, and 289. 

Algeo v. Duncan, 39 If. Y. 313 ; s. c, 7 frame. 
App. 106. Reported below as Allgro v. 
Duncan, in 24 How. Pr. 210. Disting'd 
(New Tr. — as a case where the damages 
were capable of being rendered certain) in 
Wavle v. Wavle, 9 Han, 125. Followed 
(Motion for new trial before trial judge) in 
Platz v. City of Cohoes, 8 Abb. If. G. 392, 
395. Followed (Motion for new trial for 
inadequate damages and court's jurisdiction 
to grant) in McDonald ». Walter, 40 If. Y. 
551. Followed (New Tr. — granted upon 
judge's minutes) in Duden v. Waitzfelder, 2 
Abb. If. O. 295, 299. Explained in Clark 
v. Mechanics' Nat'l Bk. of N. Y., 8 Daly, 
481, SOI. Followed (New Tr.— granting 
of) in Pollock v. Wannamaker, 65 How. Pr. 
508. 

Alger v. Conger, 17 Hun, 45. Aff 'd, it seems, 
in 79 If. Y. 633, but no opinion. Com- 
pare (Costs against one in representative 
capacity) Code Civ. Pro. § 3246. 

v. Johnson, 4 Hun, 412; s. c, 6 Supm. 

Gt. (T. & O.) 632. 

v. Raymond, 7 Bosw. 418. We are in- 
formed that this decision was affirmed in 
the Court of Appeals in October, i 863. 

v. Scott, 54 Jf. Y. 14. Followed (Rights 

of payee) in Risley v. Smith, 39 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 137; which was rev'd in 64 K Y. 
576. Reviewed, with other cases, in Brill v. 
Tuttle, 81 If. Y. 451. 

v. Scoville, 6 How. Pr. 131. See, in 

accord therewith (Joinder of causes of ac- 
tion), Cahoon t\ Bank of Utica, 7 How. Pr. 



134, which, however, was rev'd in 7 If. Y. 
486. 

Algie v. Wood, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 46. 
Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 75 If. Y. 610. 
No opinion. 

Algur v. Gardner, 54 If. Y. 360. Followed 
(How usury by agent affects principal) in 
Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Hun, 46, which was 
rev'd in 66 If. Y. 446, where Algur v. Gard- 
ner was distinguished. Followed (Usury — 
bonus being part of the contract of loan) in 
Wyeth v. Braniff, 84 If. Y. 627, 632. Dis- 
tinguished (Usury — bonus not being part of 
the contract of loan) in Wood v. Bogart, 19 
Hun, 227. Disapproved (How usury by 
agent affects principal), with Condit n. Bald- 
win, 21 If. Y 219, in New Eng. Mortgage 
Security Co. i>. Hendrickson, Supm. Ct. Neb. 
June, 1882, 14 Reporter, 405. Disapproved, 
with Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Hun, 46, in Gray 
v. Van Blarcom, 29 If. J. Eq. 454, as con- 
trary to Condit v. Baldwin, 21 If. Y. 
219. 

Alien, Matter of an, 7 Hill, 137. Appears to 
be denied in State v. Whittemore, 50 If. H. 
245; s. c, 9 Am. R. 196, 201, respecting 
the admissibility of affidavits as to resi- 
dence in naturalization cases. 

Alkenbrack v. People, 1 Den. 80. Relied on 
(Indictment — proof of allegations in) in 
Commonwealth v. Gavin, 121 Mass. 54; 
s. c, 23 Am. R. 255. 

Allaire v. Onland, 2 Johns. Cos. 52. Explained 
(Indemnity — promise to indemnify against 
trespass) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 999; n. t, 11 
Am. Ed. Followed (s. r. and validity of) with 
Coventry v. Barton, 17 Johns. 162 ; s. c, 
8 Am. Dec. 376, with note, and other cases, 
in Davis v. Arledge, 3 Hill (S. C.) 170 ; s. c, 
30 Am. Dec. 360, with note. 

Allaire v. Whitney, 1 Hill, 484, Approved 
(Fraud) in Whitney i>. Allaire, 4 Den. 554, 
which see, below. See Crooker r>. Bragg. 
Disting'd (Damages — malice) in Allaire 
Works v. Guion, 10 Barb. 58. Disting'd 
(Damages — not a case of waiver) in Nailor ». 
Schenck, 3 E. D. Smith, 135. Quoted (Dam- 
age — showing degree of) in Searlesrc. Cronk, 
38 How. Pr. 320, 326. Relied on (Ins. 
Fraud. Damages) in Harris «. Equitable 
Life Assurance Soc, 3 Hun, 724, 732. Relied 
on (Fraud — in cases of, may retain and sue 
for damages) in Lexon v. Julian, 14 Id. 152. 
Criticised and disting'd (Fraud. Damages) 
as a case of an executed contract, and said 
to be of doubtful authority so far as it enun- 
ciates a principle applicable to executory 
contracts, in People v. Stephens, 51 How. Pr. 
235, 249. Approved and applied (Fraud. 
Damages — as to grounds of action and pro- 
cedure) in Northrop v. Hill, 57 If. Y. 351, 
354. 

Allan v. Smith, 1 Cow. 180. Collated with 
other cases (Dower — valuation of land for) 
in Sharsw. & B. Cases on Real Prop. 
399. 

Allard v. Greasert, 61 If. Y. 1. See Rogers 
v. Phillips ; Krudler v. Ellison. 



14 



ALLCOTT— ALLEN. 



Allcott t. Barber, 1 Wend. 526. Explained 
and followed (Recovery for medicines fur- 
nished) in Smith v. Tracy, 2 Mall, 465. 

Allegany Oil Co. v. Bradford Oil Co., 21 

Hun, 26. Aff d in 86 If. Y. 638, on opinion 
below. 

Allen, Matter of, 24 Hun. 408 ; s. c, as 
Straus & Co., Matter of, in 61 How. Pr. 243. 
The proceedings in bankruptcy in this case 
are reported in 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 157 ; 
s. c, 17 All. L. J. 170. 

Alien v. Addington, 7 Wend. 9 ; s. c„ 11 If. T. 
Com. Law ed. 35, with brief note. Rev'd for 
error in instructions to jury, in 1 1 Id. 374. 
See Addington. «. Allen. Relied on (Fraud 
— intent of general recommendation of 
credit) in "Williams ». Wood, 14 Wend. 127. 
Relied on (to s. p. and equitable jurisdiction 
of) in Mayne u. Griswold, 3 Sand/. 463, 475. 
Relied on (Damages — exemplary, allowed in 
civil suit. Action for libel) in Fry v. Ben- 
nett, 4 Buer, 247, 260. Relied on (Fraudu- 
lent representations— privity between the 
parties ; sustaining the complaint and action 
and dismissing the demurrer) in Bank of 
Wilmington v. Barnes, 4 .464. Pr. 226. 
Explained and disting'd (Fraud— representa- 
tions, &c, and as to the action's character, 
whether in tort or assignable) in Byxbie v. 
Wood, 24. If. Y. 607. Relied on with 
others (Fraud in representations — and the 
necessity of intent to deceive) in Wakeman 
«. Dalley, 44 Barb. 498. 

v. Aguirre, 7 If. Y. 543. Reported be- 
low, in 10 Barb. 74. Explained (Statute of 
Frauds) in Dow *. Way, 64 Barb. 255, 262. 
Discussed (Statute of Fraud) in Browne on 
Stat, of Frauds, § 117, b, 4 ed. 

v. Allen, 11 How. Pr. 277. Overruled 

(Designating unknown owners, in partition) 
by Sanford v. White, 56 K T. 359 ; aft'g 1 
Supm. Ct. (T. & C.) 647 ; s. c, 46 How. Pr. 
205. 

v. , 14 How. Pr. 248. See Boington 

«j. Lapham, 14 How. Pr. 360, for a contrary 
case as to the relief to which a defendant is 
entitled, when a complaint does not conform 
to the summons. 

v. , 8 Abb. N. C. 175 ; s. c, (1st) 59 

How. Pr. 27 ; (2d) 58 How. Pr. 381. Com- 
pare Walker v. Walker, 8 Mb. 17. C. 436; 
s. c, 82 If. T. 260. Opposed (Alimony) in 
Bloodgood v. Bloodgood, 59 How. Pr. 42, 
on authority of Bartlett v. Bartlett, Clarke, 
460. See cases collated in 60 Am. Dec. 665, 
676, n. 

v. Atlantic Telegraph Co., 21 Hun, 22. 

See Ward v. Atlantic, etc. Telegraph Co. 

v. Bishop, 25 Wend. 414. See (Action 

by or against executor, &c.) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, ch. XV. tit. III. art. 1. note. 

t. Brown, 51 Barb. 86. Aft'd in 44 If. 

Y. 228. See Myers v. Davis. Decision in 
44 If. Y., disting'd (Recovery by transferee) 
in Hays v. Hathorn, 74 N. Y. 486, 489. See 
(Burden of proof in action on municipal 
bonds) McCall v. Town of Hancock {U. S. 



Circuit Ct. If. B. K Y. January, 1882), 13 
Reporter, 419 ; s. c, 10 Fed. R. 8, as con- 
trary to the principal case, and to Cagwin r>. 
Hancock, 84 If. Y. 532 ; Starin «. Town of 
Genoa, 23 Id. 439 ; Gould v. Sterling, Id. 
456, and as following Town of Venice v. 
Murdock, 92 U. 8. 494, as binding upon the 
court. 

Y. , 5 Lans. 280. See subsequent 

decisions in 60 Barb. 39, and 5 Lans. oil. 
Disting'd (Effect of forfeiture of life estate) 
in Moore v. Pitts, 53 If. Y. 85, 91. 

T. , 5 Lans. 511. Followed (Costs 

of motion to remove injunction) in Langdon 
v. Gray, 22 Hun, 512. 

v. City of Buffalo, 39 2V T . Y. 386. An- 
other decision in 38 N. J". 280. Disting'd 
(Irregular assessments) in Tilden v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y., 56 Barb. 340. 

v. Cook, 26 Barb. 374. Disapproved 

(Judgment lien on homestead) in 1 Am. L. 
Reg. If. S. 714, citing cases. Approved in 
Smith v. Brackett, 36 Barb. 571, 574. Dis- 
approved (Statutes of exemption — not liber- 
ally construed) in 1 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 647. 
Collated with other cases in 20 Am. R. 150, 
7i., as to the right and effect of disposal by a 
debtor, of his exempt property. 

v. Cowan, 28 Barb. 99. Rev'd on the 

ground that the delivery was sufficient, in 23 
If. Y. 502. Decision in 23 If. Y., applied 
(H. & W. — possession by) in Porter v. Mc- 
Grath, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 84, 102. 

v. Crary, 10 Wend. 349; s. c, 25 Am. 

Bee. 566, with note. Explained (Replevin, 
what sufficient taking to sustain) in Chap- 
man v. Douglas, 5 Daly, 244, 252. Ap- 
plied in Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. 494; 
Latimer v. Wheeler, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 
42; Neff v. Thompson, 8 Barb. 215. Dis- 
approved iu Brockway v. Burnstp, 12 Barb. 
351; which was, however, rev'd in 16 Id. 
309. Disting'd in Hymann i>. Cook, How. 
App. Cos. 436. Followed in Knapp v. 
Smith, 27 If. Y. 277. Reaff d in Boyce v. 
Brockway, 31 Id. 490. Followed (Liability 
of plaintiff for levy) in Marsh v. Backus, 16 
Barb. 483. Disting'd in Chapman v. Dou- 
glas, 15 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 428. Approved 
with Stewart v. Wells, 6 Barb. 70 ; and 
Brockway e. Bur-nap, 12 Barb. 347 being 
disapproved in Mitchell v. Roberts, 50 If. 
H 486. Denied (Replevin lies wherever 
trespass de bonis would) in Richardson v. 
Reed, 4 Cray (Mass.) 441. 

T. Crofoot, 2 Wend. 515; s. c, 20 Am. 

Bee. 647 ; Garr ». Selden, 4 If. Y. 91. Ap- 
proved (Question for the jury) in Perkins v. 
Mitchell, 31 Barb. 461. 

v. , 5 Wend. 506 ; s. c, 10 If. Y. 

Com. I. Law. ed. 930, with brief note cit- 
ing other cases. Quoted (Trespass upon 
property — essentials of) in Bigelow Cases on 
Torts, 386. 

v. Culver. 3 Ben. 284. Applied (Ap- 
plication of payments) in Dows v. More- 
wood, 10 Barb. 189. Distinguished (Cove- 



ALLEtf. 



15 



r.ant running with land) in Tallman v. Cof- 
fin, 4 K Y. 137. 

v. Devlin, 6 Bosw. 1. Aff'd in 23 A 7 ! 

Y. 363. Decision in 6 Bosw. commented 
upon (Statute of Frauds — surrender of 
lease; in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 34, 
n. 3, 4 Ed. 

■ v. Dykers, 3 Hill, 593. Aff'd in 7 Id. 

497. See Dykers «. Allen ; Nourse v. Prime. 
Dicta of Walworth, Ch., in latter decision as 
to power of sale, commented on in Milliken 
v. Dehon, 27 A 7 ". Y. 364. Examined (Power 
of pledgee of shares of stock) -with other 
cases in 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 454, n. 

■ v. Eighmie, 14 Hun, 559. Aff'd it 

seems in 79 A 7 ! Y. 632, but no opinion. 

v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. Pr. 

501. See Catlin v. Hansen. Followed (As- 
signor for creditors, competency of, as wit- 
ness) in Symonds v. Peck, 10 How. Pr. 
395. See also in accord therewith, Davidson 
«. Miner, 9 How. Pr. 524. 

v. Fourth Nat. Bank. 37 Super. Ct. (J. 

& S.) 137. Aff'd in 59 N. Y. 12; which 
latter decision was extended and applied in 
U. S. v. Nat. Park Bank, 6 Fed. Pep 
854, as to the effect of negligence in making 
payment. 

v. Fox, 51 A 7 ! Y. 562. Included (Dam- 
ages in replevin) in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 
650. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §1722, n. 
Followed in Yaudlc v. Kingsbury, 17 Kan. 
195 ; s. c, 22 Am. B. 282 ; Bell v. Campbell, 
.17 Kan. 211; s. c, 22 Am. P. 284, n. 

v. Hudson River Mut. Ins. Co., 19 

, Bart. 442. Collated (Clauses in fire policies 
restraining mortgages, &c.) with other cases 
in 59 Am. Dec. 311, n. 

v. Jaquish, 21 Wend. 628. Quoted 

(Statute of Frauds — conveying lands — seal) 
in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 7, n. 3, 4 
Ed. ; Id. § 47. 

v. Mapes, 20 Wend. 633 ; Grant v. Mc- 

Caughlin, 4 How. Pr. 216. Disapproved 
(Admitting defense of usury on opening 
judgment by default) in Farish v. Coilies, 1 
Daly, 274. But compare McQueen v. Bab- 
cock, 13 Abb. Pr. 208, which was aff'd in 
3 Keyes, 428, as to the right to set up new 
defenses on amending a pleading. 

v. Martin, 10 Wend. 300; s. c, 25 Am. 

Bee. 564, with note. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 K D. Smith, 

404. Disting'd (Recovery of money paid 
ou ' assessment) in Perdue v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 12 Abb, Pr. 31. Followed in 
Mayer v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun. 306; 
s. c, 4 Supm. Ct. (T: & C.) 490. 

Mercantile Mutual Ins. Co., 46 Barb. 

642. Rev'd in 44 N. Y. 437. 

v. Meyer, 7 Daly, 229. Appeal dis- 
missed, it seems, in 71 A 7 ". Y. 594, but no 
opinion. Re-argument .denied in 73 Id. 
1. Decision in 71 A 7 ". Y. followed (Order 
not appealable) in Claflin v. Baeie, 80 N. 
Y. 642. 

v. Merchants' Bk. of N. Y., 22 Wend. 

215. Followed (Liability of collecting bank) 



in Montgomery County Bk. of Penn. ■». 
Albany City Bk., 7 A 7 ! Y. 459, which aff'd 
in part 8 Barb. 399 ; Commercial Bk. of 
Penn. t>. Union Bk. of N. Y., 11 N. Y. 211, 
aff'g 19 Barb. 395; Indig v. Nat. City Bk., 
16 Hun, 201, which was however rev'd in 
80 A 7 ". Y. 100 ; Ayrault v. Pacific Bk., 47 A 7 ". 
Y. 573, aff'g 6 Bob. 337. Discussed at 
length in Britton s. McColls, 104 U. S. 757. 
Cited as establishing the doctrine in Ex- 
change Nat. Bk. v. Third Nat. Bk., 112 Id. 
276, 282. Applied in Hoard v. Garner, 10 
N. Y. 261 (aff'g 3 Sandf. 179) to case of 
covenant for collection of mortgage. Re- 
viewed in State Bk. of Troy «. Bank of 
Capitol, 41 Barb. 350. Explained in Bank 
of Orleans v. Smith', 3 Hill, 563. Applied 
(Evidence of usage) in Fabbri v. Mercantile 
Mut. Ins. Co., 64 Barb. 101; Dalton v. 
Daniels, 2 Hilt. 472; Bowen «. Newell, 2 
Duer, 595. Explained (Liability for notary's 
neglect) in Commercial Bk. of Ky. v. 
Varnum, 3 Lans. 90, n. See contra, cases 
cited, in 7 South. L. J. K S. 47. 

v. Mille, 17 Wend. 202. See Troup v. 

Smith. Commented on (Statute of Limita- 
tions — fraudulent concealment) in Angell 
on Limitations, % 185, 6 ed. Followed and 
approved, with Troup v. Smith, 20 Johns. 
33 ; Leonard v. Pitney, 5 Wend. 30 ; Hum- 
bert v. Trinity Church, 24 Id. 587, in Free- 
holders of Somerset v. Yeghte, 44 A 7 ! J. Kg.; 
s. c, 28 Alb. L. J. 29, 33. Compare Code 
Civ. Pro. § 410. 

v. N. J. Southern R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr. 

14. See (Necessity that action for injuries 
caused by acts of officers of a corporation be 
brought in name of corporation) Greaves v. 
Gouge, 69 N. Y. 154 ; s. c, 54 How. Pr. 272. 

v. Patterson, 7 K .Y. 476; s. c, 57 

Am. Dee. 542. Commented on (What 
constitutes a sufficient pleading) in Ches- 
brough v. N. Y & Erie R. R. Co., 26 Barb. 
914; Roedigera. Simmons, 14 Abb. Pr. A 7 . S. 
260; Acome v. American Mineral Co., 11 
How. Pr. 27. Followed in Adams v. Holley, 
12 How. Pr. 329 ; Betts v. Bache, 14 Abb. Pr. 
285; Simsera. Cowan, 56 Barb. 397; Cud- 
lipp 1>. Whipple, 4 Duer, 610; Merwin v. 
Hamilton, 6 Id. 253; Moffet e. Sackett, 18 
A 7 ". Y. 522; Hosley v. Black, 28 Id. 444; 
Solomon i>. Vinson, 31 Minn. 205. Dis- 
ting'd in Drake -v. Cockcroft, 5 K. D. 
Smith. 34; Witherhead t>. Allen, 4 A bb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 628; Keteltas v. Myers, 1 Abb. 
Pr. 410. which was, however, rev'd in 19 
A 7 ! F. 231. 

v. Pell, 4 Wend. 505. Explained (Set off 

in action for rent) in Whitbeck o. Skin- 
ner, 7 Hill, 53. 

v. People, 57 Barb. 338. Rev'd in 43 

K Y. 28. 

v". Public Administrator, 1 Bradf. 221. 

Further decision in Id. 378, said to be affd 
in Seld. Notes, Apl. 1853, p. 57. See John- 
son i>. Johnson; Sprague s. Duel. With 
decision in 1 Bradf. 221 ; compare (Privilege 
of attorney) Sheridan v. Houghton, 6 Abb. 



16 



ALLEN— ALMY. 



If. 0. 234, n. Applied in Pcarsall v. Elmer, 

5 Bed/, 181, 182, 184, 190. 

v. Reynolds, 36 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 297. 

Doubted (Acknowledgment by married 
•woman) in 41 Am. Dec. 180, n. Compare 
Gilraith v. Gallivan, Mo., Nov. 5, 1883, 29 
Alb. L. J. 14. 

■ ; T. Rightmere, 20 Johns. 365; s. c, 11 

Am. Dec. 288. Followed (Right of guarantor 
to demand and notice) with Brown v. Cur- 
tiss, 2 K Y. 225 ; Union B'k e. Coster, 3 Id. 
203; Luqueer v. Prosser, 1 Sill, 256, in 
Donley v. Camp, 22 Ala. 659; s. c, 58 Am. 
Dec. 274. Disting'd, with Douglass v. 
Howland, 24 Wend. 35: in Lowe v. Beck- 
with, 14 B. Monr. (£y.) 184; s. c, 58 Am. 
Dee. 665. 

v. Sackridcr, 37 N. T. 341. Followed 

(Essential characteristics of common carriers) 
in Fish v. Clark, 2 Lans. 176. Included 
■with note in 2 Bed/. Am. Bailw. Oases, 33. 

v. St. Louis Ins. Go., 46 Super. Ct. {J. 

6 S.) 175. Aff d in 85 N. Y. 473. 

v. Scandinavian Nat. B'k, 46 How. Pr. 

71. See Tracy v. First Nat. B'k of Selma. 
Disting'd (Special appearance' to vacate 
attachment) as decided prior to Code Civ. 
Pro. § 682, in People's B'k of N. Y. v. 
Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 62 Sow, 
Pr. 422, 425; National Shoe, &c. B'k v. 
Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 89 If. Y. 
440. 

— T — v. Scarff, 1. Silt. 209. Applied (Guar- 
anty) in Post v. Geoghegan, 5 Daly, 216, 
218. 

v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327. Rev'd in 6 Id. 

325. See King v. Lenox. 

v. Starring-, 26 How. Pr. 57. Followed 

(Adjournment of supplementary proceed- 
ings) in Kaufman v. Thrasher, 10 Hun, 438, 
442. 

v. Snydnni, 17 Wend. 368. Rev'd in 20 

Id. 321 ; s. c, 13 K Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 
868, with brief note. See Blot v. Boiceau ; 
Smedes v. Bank of Utica. Cited approvingly 
(Liability of agent who fails to present 
negotiable paper for acceptance) in Exchange 
Nat. B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. S. 276, 
291. Included in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 
393; Bicjel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 185. Dis- 
cussed, Id. 240. Collated with other cases 
in Holcombe Lead. Cas. on Com. Law, 24. 
Included with notes in Bed/. & B. Lead. 
Cas. on B. of Ex. 26 ; also in 32 Am. Dee. 
555, with note containing citations. Ex- 
plained (Presenting bill for acceptance on 
the day it becomes due) in Plato v. Rey- 
nolds, 27 K Y. 586. 

v. Webster, 15 Wend. 284; s. c, 12 If. 

Y. Com. L., Law. Ed. 866, with brief note. 
See Utica Ins. Co. 

Y.Williamsburgli Sav. B'k, 2 Abb. N. C. 

342. AflE'd, 69 N. Y. 314. Decision in 69 
If. Y. followed (Duties and liabilities of 
savings banks') in Boone v. Citizen's Savgs. 
B'k of N. Y., 9 Abb. If. C. 146, 150 ; s. c, 
84 N. Y. 83, 87. 

Allerton T. Allcrton, 50 K Y. 670. Ex- 



plained (Tender of amount received on 
application for rescission of contract) in 
Gould v. Cayuga, &c. Nat. B'k, 21 Hun, 
293, 302 ; Metropolitan, &c. R'y Co. v. Man- 
hattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. If. C. 229; Anthony 
n. Day, 52 How. Pr. 35. Explained (Deceit 
by partners) in Moah's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 
Am. ed. 544. 

v. Belden, 3 Lans. 492 ; rev'd in 49 If. 

Y. 373. See Cole v. Savage. Decision in 
49 N. Y. followed (Equitable relief by Can- 
cellation) in Hoffman v. Treadwell, 39 Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 183, 188 ; Metropolitan, &c. 
R'y Co. v. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. If. 
C. 103, 204. 

v. Lang. See Millspaugh v. Putnam. 

Allgro T. Duncan, 24 How. Pr. 210. AfTd 
as Algeo v. Duncan, in 39 If. Y. 313 ; s. c, 
7 Transc. App. 106. 

Allis v. Leonard, 46 If. Y. 688 ; s. c. more 
fully, 22 Alb. L. J. 28. Cited (Admissions 
and denials in answer) in Fellows v. Mul- 
ler, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 137, 141 ; 
Haines v. Herrick, 9 Abb. If. C. 379; 
Calhoun v. Hallen, 25 Hun, 155. Reluct- 
antly followed in Smith v. Gratz, 59 How. 
Pr. 274, 276. Disting'd in Potter v. Frail, 
67 How. Pr. 445. Supported in Burley v. 
German Am. Bk., Ill U. S. 216. 

v. , 58 If. Y. 288. Disting'd (Ex- 
pression of opinion in charging the jury) 
in Massoth ». Delaware & Hudson Canal 
Co., 6 Hun, 314, 318. 

■». Read, 45 If. Y. 142. Explained 

(Payment taking contract out of statute of 
frauds) in Hunter v. Wetsell, 57 If. Y. 375, 
379. 

t. Wheeler, 56 K Y. 50. Followed 

(Allowance of costs to one of several defend- 
ants) in Park v. Spaulding, 10 Hun, 128 ; 
Pierce v. Brown, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
398. Distiug'd in Williams v. Cassaday, 

22 Hun, 182. Explained in Royce v. 
Jones, 23 Hun. 452, 453. See Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 3229, n. 

Allison v. Ma<tthieu, 3 Johns. 234. Followed 
(Evidence of fraudulent intent) in People 
v. Shulman, 80 If. Y. 374, n. Explained 
(Effect on fraud on contract of sale) in 
Stevens v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 171, 175, 179. 

v. Weller, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 291 ; 

mem. in 3 Hun, 608. Aff'd it seems in 66 
If. Y. 614 but without opinion. See mem. 
of another decision in 3 Hun, 620 ; also 
aff d it seems in 66 If. Y. 614. 

Allyn y. Thurston, 53 If. Y 622. Mem. of 
decision below on injunction in 3 Alb. L. J. 
302. See Chautauqua Co. Bk. v. White ; 
Estes v. Wilcox. Applied (Relief against 
fraudulent conveyance) in Adsit v. Sanford, 

23 Hun, 45, 48. Followed in Estes v. Wil- 
cox, 67 If. Y. 264. Explained (Effect of 
L. 1858, c. 314) in Barton v. Hosner, 24 
Hun. 467, 471. 

Almgren v. Dutilh. See Walrath v. Thomp- 
son. 

Aliny t. Harris, 5 Johns. 175; s. c. 3 N. Y. 
Com. L, Law. ed. 985, with brief note Qf 



ALSOP-AMERICAK 



17 



other cases. See Dudley v. Mayhew. Ap- 
plied (Construction of remedial statute) 
in People v. Rickey, 5 Daly, 365, 377. 
Disting'd in Jordan v. Skaneateles Plank- 
road Co. v. Morley, 23 If. Y. 552. Ap- 
proved in Fletcher v. State Capital Bank, 37 
N. .ff./369, 392. 

Alsop v. Caines, 10 Johns. 396. AfTd, as 
Caines v. Brisban, in 18 Id. 9. 

Alston v. Conger, 66 Barb. 272. Applied 
(Bond of indemnity given to sheriff) in 
Reilly v. Coleman, 62 How. Pr. 289. 

v. Jones, 3 Barb. Ch. 397. See previous 

decision in 10 Paige, 98; subsequent decis- 
ion in 17 Barb. 276. See Grant v. Van 
Schoonhoven. 

v. Mechanics' Mutual Ins. Co., 1 Bill, 

510. Rev'd in 4 Mill, 329. See Farmers' 
Ins. & Loan (Jo. v. Snyder. Decision in 
4 -Hill disapproved (Representations and 
warranties) in Bilbrough v. Metropolis Ins. 
Co., 5 Duer, 587. Examined, also, in 
Glendale Manuf. Co. v. Protection Ins. Co., 
21 Conn. 34. 

Altemus v. Mayor, &c, 6 Duer, 446. Dis- 
ting'd (Corporation — when liable without 
previous appropriation) in Jones v. Ma3'or, 
&c. of N. Y., 7 Bolt. 209. 

Althof v. Wolf, 2 Milt. 344. AfTd in 22 
K Y. 355. Decision in 22 N. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Mitigation of damages in action for 
personal injury) in Drinkwater v. Dins- 
more, 80 JST. Y. 390, 392. Cited and ap- 
proved as most in harmony with the princi- 
ples established by decided cases, in Hard- 
ing v. Town of Townshend, 43 Vt. 536 ; s. 
c, 5 Am. B. 304. Discussed (Liability of 
master for acts done by sei-vants employed 
by other servants) in 1 Addison on Torts, 
590, n., Wood's Ed. 

Alvord v. Baker, 9 Wend. 323. See Rawson 
v. Adams. See to the contrary (Proof of 
delivery) Blount v. Starkey, 1 Tayl. {N~. 
C.) 110; s. c, 2 Mayw. 75. But see Abb. 
Tr. Ev. 315. 

v. Hay nes, 13 Hun, 26. Followed 

(Sheriff's liability for wrongful seizure) in 
Masten v. Webb. 24 Mun, 90, 92 ; rev'g 
60 How. Pr. 302. ' 

American Bible Society v. Hebard, 51 Barb. 
552. Said in 41 N. Y. 619, to have been 
affd by Ct. of App. See (Action by legatee 
against executor) Civ. Code Pro. 1881, § 
1819, 7i., where the rule of law laid down 
in this case as to the statute of limitations 
is said to be changed. 

v. Stark, 45 How. Pr. 160. Discussed 

(Wills. Perpetuities) in 1 Jarman on Wills, 
Randolph and Talcott Ed. 512, n. 

American Dock, &c. Co. v. Staley, 40 
Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 539. Questioned (Mo- 
tion to compel election between causes of 
action) in Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. Jf. C. 
72, 75, n. 

American Exchange Bk. v. City Bank, 5 
N. Y. Leg. Obs. 18. Applied (Fictitious 
payee) in Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Bk. of 
Metropolis, 7 Daly, 137, 141. 

2 



T. Webb, 15 Mow. Pr. 193. Rev'd in 

36 Barb. 291. 

American Exchange Fire Ins. Co. v. Brit- 
ton, 8 Bosw. 148. Applied (Action for 
restitution of illegal fees) in American 
Steamship Co. v. Young, 89 Penn. St. 186 ; 
s. c, 33 Am. R 748. 

American Express Co , Matter of, 2 Month. 
L. Bui. 63. Rev'd, it seems, in 22 Hun, 
609. 

American Home Missionary Society v. 
Wadhams, 10 Barb. 597. Rev'd in 12 M. 
Y. 415. 

American Ins. Co. v. Bryan, 1 Mill, 25. 
Affd in 26 Wend. 563. Decision in 26 Wend. 
discussed (Clause in marine policy against 
loss by thieves) in 3 Kent Com. 303, n. e. 
Explained in Spinetti v. Atlas Steamship 
Co., 80 W. Y. 71, 79. Approved (Loss in- 
curred by default of master or mariners) in 
Matthews v. Howard Ins. Co., 11 M. Y. 1, 21. 
Applied (Theft as simple larceny) in People 
ex rel. Jourdan v. Donohue, 84 If. Y. 4:J3, 
442. 

v. Center, 4 Wend. 45; aft'g 7 Cow. 

564. Explained and distinguished (What 
constitutes an actual total loss of freight) in 
Hubbell v. Great Western Ins. Co., 74 M. 
Y. 246, 253. Doubted (Authority of master 
to sell, in case of technical total loss) in Hall 
1>. Franklin Ins. Co., 9 Pick.. 466 ; and see 
Freeman v. East India Co., 5 Barnwell & 
Aid. 617; 3 Kent Com. 173, n. a; Schooner 
Tilton, 5 Mans. 481. 

v. Dunham, 12 Wend. 463. Affd in 15 

Id. 9. 

v. Griswold, 14 Wend. 399. Commented 

on (Liability of successive insurers) in 3 
Kent Com. 281, n. e. Said in 28 Am. Dec. 
123, n., to have been doubted (referring to 
Whiting v. Independent Ins. Co., 15 Hid. 
295). Followed (Effect of landing portion 
of goods covered by marine policy) in Chadr 
sey v. Guion, 48 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
267. 

v. Button, 24 Wend. 330. Aff'd in. 7 

Bill, 321. Explained (Vessel, when at 
sea) in Union Ins. Co. v. Tysen, 3 Hill, 
118. 

y. Oakley, 9 Paige, 259. Other proceed- 
ings in Id. 496. Decision on p. 259 fol: 
lowed (Re-sale in foreclosure, &c.) in Gould 
v\ Mortimer, 16 Abb. Pr. 448. Reviewed 
with other cases in Lefevre «. Laraway, 22 
Barb. 174. Applied in Kellogg v. Howell, 
62 Bo-*-l. 284. Criticised in Wolcott v. 
SHienck. 23 How. Pr. 388. Decision on p. 
496 applied (Corporation, when bound) 
in Isaacs v. Beth Hamedash Society, 1 
Hilt. 471 ; Lee i>. Pittsburgh Coal, &c. Co., 
56 How. Pr. 378; Peterson v. Mayor, &c. 
of K. Y., 17 N. Y. 454. Followed (Un- 
authorized appearance by attorney) in dis- 
senting opinion in Brown v. Nichols, 42 
K Y. 32. 

v. Ogden, 15 Wend. 532. Rev'd in 

20 Id. 287. See Ruckman t. Merchants' 
Louisville Ins. Co. Decision in 20 Wend. 



18 



AMEKIOAN— AHOSKEAG. 



explained (Want of funds, as cause of 
abandonment) in 3 Kent Com. 322, n. c; 
Ruck in an v. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co., 
5 Drier, 342, 359. See (Implied wnrranty of 
seaworthiness in time policies) Thompson 
v. Ilopper, 6 El. & Bl. 172, 937< and cases 
cited; Hoxie v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co., 7 
Allen, 21 ] , and cases cited. Followed (What 
constitutes unseaworthiness) in Lapene' ■». 
Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 8 La. Ann. 1 ; s. c, 58 
Am. Dec. 668. 

American Life Ins. & Trust/Co. v. Tan Epps, 
14 Abb. Pr. K 8. 253. Rev'd in 56 N. T. 
601. See also (Costs against trustee per- 
sonally) Code Civ. Pro. § 3246. 

American Medicine Co. v. Kessler, 38 Super. 
Ct. {J. & S.) 407. Rev'd in 66 N. Y. 637. 
See further decision in 44 Super. Ct. {J. & 
S.) 557. 

American Natl Bank of N. T. t. Wheelock, 
45 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 205. Appeal dis- 
missed in 82 N. Y. 118. 

American Seaman's Friend So. v. Hopper, 
43 Barb. 625. Affd in 33 1ST. Y. 619. 

American Silk Works v. Salomon, 4 Hun, 
135; s. c. more fully in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 352. 

American Transportation Co. v. City of 
Buffalo, 23 Barb. 272. Affd in 20 K Y. 
388. 

American Union Tel. Co. v. Middleton, 80 
N. Y. 408. Compare (Jurisdiction in actions 
for injuries to land without the State), 22 
Alb. L. J. 47, 119, 147, 219. Explained in 
Atl. & Pac. Tel. Co. «. Bait. & Ohio R. R. 
Co., 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 377, 386. 

Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb. 513. Disting'd 
(Performance of covenants in charter-party 
— when excused) in Steele v. Buck, 61 III. 
343; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 60, 65. 

v. Duryea, 6 Lans. 155. Aff 'd in 61 N. Y. 

609. 

v. Jones, 77 K Y. 614. Reviewed and 

collated (Production of sample not neces- 
sarily a sale by sample) with other cases to 
same effect in 22 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 242. 

v. Merriman, 9 Wend. 498. Explained 

(Who to make affidavit on motion for judg- 
ment as for nonsuit) in Bird s. Moore, 3 
Bill, 447. 

■ v. N. T. Union Ins. Co., 14 N. Y. 253. 

See Masters v. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. Co. ; 
Mayor of N. Y. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. 
Followed (Waiver by insurer) in Rowley v. 
Empire Ins. Co., 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 134; 
Liddle v. Market Fire Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. ^88, 
191; Van Allen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. 
Co., 10 Hun, 399, and 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
593 ; Whit well v. Putnam Fire Ins. Co., 
6 Lans. 167. Disting'd in Underwood v. 
Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 iV. Y. 506. 
Followed (Effect of acts, &c. of insurance 
agent) in Hodgkins v. Montgomery Co. 
Mutual Ins. Co., 34 Barb. 214; Huntley v. 
Perry, 38 Barb. 571. Reviewed with other 
cases in Van Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. 
Co., C8 K Y. 438. Followed, with Rowley 
v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 21. Y. 550, in Alex- 



ander v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 5 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 208 ; s. c, 2 Hun, 655. Fol- 
lowed (Effect of condition limiting action 
on fire policy) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. 
Hamilton Fire Ins. Co , 39 JST. Y. 46, which 
aft'd 10 Bosw. 547. Explained in Ripley v. 
^Etna Ins. Co., 30 N. Y. 163. Reaffd in 
Wilkinson v. First Nat, Fire Ins. Co., 72 
K Y. 502. Applied in Young v. Western 
Union Tel. Co., 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 396; 
Ripley «. Astor Ins. Co., 17 How. Pr. 445 ; 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Hamilton Fire Ins. 
Co., 39 K Y. 45 ; and the latter applied in 
Killips «. Putnam Fire Ins. Co., 28 Wis. 
472 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 506, 513. 

T.Webber, 11 Wend. 186. Explained 

(Motion to dismiss writ of error) in Boyd v. 
Weeks, 6 Hill, 71. 

Amidon v. Wheeler. 3 Hill, 137, Dis- 
ting'd (Restitution) in Matter of Guardian 
Sav'gs Inst'n, 78 N. Y 408, 413. 

Ammidon v. Walcott, 15 Abb. Pr. 314. Fol- 
lowed (Adjournment of supplementary pro- 
ceedings) in Kauffmau v. Thrasher, 10 Hun, 
438, 441. 

Amovy v. Amory, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
520. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 684, 
mem. ; and that affd in 95 U. S. (5 Otto) 186. 

T. Flyn, 10 Johns. 102. See People v. 

McGarren. Relied on (Rights of finder of 
lost property) in Sheldon -c. Sherman, 42 JT. 
Y. 489. 

v. Lord, 9 N~. Y. 403. See Savage v. 

Burnharn. Disting'd (Suspension of power 
of alienation) in Woodruff ■». Cook, 61 i\T. 
Y. 641. Harrison v. Harrison, 36 K Y. 
543. 

v. McGregor, 15 Johns. 24; s. c, 8 Am. 

Dec. 205. See Fontaine v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 
Explained (Common carrier — measure of 
damages in actions against) in Ang. on Carr. 
§ 484, n. 1, 5 ed. Cases collected (Inter- 
course between citizens of belligerent na- 
tions) in 10 Am. L. Reg. JV. S. 228. Cited 
approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 66, n. a. • Fol- 
lowed, with Brackett v. McNair, 14 Johns. 
171; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 260, in McGregor v. 
Kilgore, 6 Ohio, 363. Said in 8 Am. Dec. 
211, n., to have been noticed elsewhere 
as to allowance of interest where there is 
fraud. 

Anioskeag Mnnnf. Co. v. Mayor, &c. of 
Albany, 63 & Y. 637. Disting'd (Power 
to reduce claim presented for audit) in 
Matter of Murphy, 24 Hun, 596, rev'g 60 
How. Pr. 258, where the case was relied 
on. 

T. Spear, 2 Sandf. 599. See Hier v. 

Abrahams; Matsetl v. Flanagan; Popham v. 
Wilcox; Stokes e. Landgraff. Approved 
(Trade-mark and injunction) in Samuel v. 
Berger, 24 Barb. 164; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. 88; 
13 How. Pr. 342; FetriUge v. Merchant, 4 
Abb. Pr. 101; Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. 
Pr. 388; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 Id. 67; Uor- 
win v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 222 ; Williams o. 
Johnson, 2 Bosw. 1 ; Morgan's Sons' Co. v. 
Troxell, 23 Him, 638, 040; Burnett v. 



AMSBEY— ANDERSON. 



19 



Phalon, 3 Keyes, 594; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. K 
S. 212. Followed in Congress Spring Uo. 
■v. High Rock Spring Co., 45 If. Y. 2»1 ; s. 
c, 10 466. Pr. N. S. 348; rev'g 57 Barb. 
526 ; Gillott v. Esterbrook, 17 Barb. 463, 
and 48 Jf. Y. 377 ; Newman v. Alvord, 40 
Barb. 593 ; Gillott v. Kettle, 3 Duer, 624. 
Disting'd in Mcueely v. Meueely, 1 Hun, 
375 ; Godillot v. Hazard, 44 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 427, 430. Followed with Stokes «. 
Landgraff, 17 Barb. 608 ; Fetridge v. Wells, 
4 Abb. Pr. 144; Williams o. Johnson, 2 
Bosw. 1, and other cases in Burke v. Cassin, 
45 Cal. 467; s. c, 13 Am. B. 204. Applied 
in Manuf. Co. e. Trainer, 101 U. 8. (11 
' Otto) 51, 61. Quoted in 2 P(ws. era Contr. 
257 6ft. rc. 4 ; Id. 257, cc. ». t. 

Amsbey v. Hinds, 46 Barb. 622. AfFd in 48 
A 7 . K 57. Decision in 48 N~. Y. disting'd 
(Retroactive effect of statute) with Mc- 
Cahill v. Hamilton, 20 Hun, 388; Watkins 
v. Haight, 18 Johns. 138 ; Berley v. Ram- 
pacher, 5 Duer, 188, in Matter of Lauter- 
jung, 48 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 308. 

Amsdell v. McCaffrey, 16 Hun, 255. 
Disting'd (Sufficiency of notice of appeal 
from justice's judgment) in Andrews v. 
Long. 19 Bun, 303. See Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 3070, n. 

Amsinck v. Northrup, 12 Weekly Big. 573. 
Reported as Amsinck v. North, 62 Mow. 
Pr. 114. 

Anable t. Anahle, 24 How. Pr. 92. See 
(Verification of pleadings in action for di- 
vorce) Olney v. Olney, 7 Abb. Pr. 350; 
Sweet®. Sweet, 15 How. Pr. 169; Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 1757, n. 

v. Steam Engine Co., 16 Abb. Pr. 286 ; 

Aff'd, as Anabies. Conklin, in 25 N. Y. 470. 

Anchor Life Ins. Co. v. Pease, 66 Barb. 
360; s. c, more fully, 44 How. Pr. 385. 

Anderson, Matter of, 48 How. Pr. 279 ; Mem. 
of s. c, 2 Hun, 377, and 4 Sup'm. Ct. ( T. & 
C.) 658. Modified in 60 If. Y. 457. Decis- 
ion in 60 Jf. Y. disting'd (Designation of 
corporation papers) in Matter of Bur.neister. 
76 K Y. 174. - 

- — v. Dickie, 1 Robt. 700; s. c, more fully, 
17 466. Pr. 83; 26 How. Pr. 199. Over- 
ruled (Granting new trial after judgment) 
in Trace.y v. Altmyer, 46 A. Y. 598. 

y. Drake,- 14 Johns. 114; s. c, 7 Am. 

Dec. 442, with note containing citations ; s. 
c, 5 If. Y. Com. L. Law. Ed. 795, with brief 
note.. Included (Effect of removal of maker 
of note in excusing holder from present- 
ment and demand) in 2 Ames Cases on B. S 
N. 334. Examined in Foster v. Julien, 24 
Jf. Y. 28, 30, 39 ; and see Niagara District 
Bank v. Fairman, &c. Manuf. Co., 31 .Bar6. 
403, 406. Seems to be disting'd, though 
approved, in Hepburn «. Toledano, 10 
Mart, (la.) 643 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 345. 

v. Hill, 53 Barb. 238. Criticised and 

doubted (Remedy for misjoinder of causes 
of action) in Henderson d. Jackson, 2 
Sweeney, 324; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 168; s. c, 
9 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 293. 



v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 382. See Jackson 

v. Blanshan. Explained (Executory de- 
vises) in Wilkes o. Lion, 2 CW333, 392, i,s 
turning on the word '" survivor." Result of 
the litigation stated in Waldron v. Gianini. 
6 Hill, 601. Rule laid down, followed in 
Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 513, as a local 
rule of property. Discussed in 4 Kent 
Com. 279, and n. e. Cited as authority iu 
Roach v. Martin's Lessee, 1 Harr. (Del.) 
548 ; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 746, 755. 

v. James, 4 Robt. 35, Said, in 6 Aib. L. 

J. 166, to have been aff'd by Court of Ap- 
peals, in April, 1871. See Wetmore v. Law. 

v. Lemon, 4 Sand/. 552. Rev'd in 8 K 

Y. 236. Decision in 8 Jf. Y. doubted 
(Right of partner to purchase reversion of 
real estate occupied by partnership) in 
Mitchell v. Reed, 61 If. Y. 123, 142. 

v. Mather, 44 If. Y. 249. Explained 

(Jurisdiction of court of equity to direct 
sale of infants' real estate) in 2 Perry on 
Trusts, 3 Ed. § 610, n. L 

- — v. Nicholas, 5 Bosw. 121. Aff d in 28 
If. Y. 600. See Bush v. Lathrop. Decision 
in 5 Bosw. followed, as to agency and trans- 
fer, in McNeil v. Tenth National Bank of 
N. Y., 55 Barb. 59. Cited (Distinction 
between conversion of certificate of stock 
and of the stock itself) with Reynolds i>. 
Shuler, 5 Cow. 323 ; Packard «. Getman, 
6 Id. 7&7 ; Hawkins i>. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 
586 ; in Daggett ». Davis, 53 Mich. 37. 

v. Prindle, 23 Wend. 616. Commented 

on (Questions arising on certiorari) with 
Buck v. Binninger, S Barb. 391, iu Havi- 
land v. White, 7 Hoio. Pr. 154. 

v. Rapelye, 9 Paige, 483. Rev'd in 4 

Hill, 472, 

T. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co., 9Hou>. Pr. 

553. Explained and followed (Property 
dedicated to public use) in Burnet v. Bagg, 
67 Barb. 154. Limited in Matter of Bos- 
ton. &c. R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 574. 

v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 

54 A" Y. 334. Followed (Declarations of 
witness) in People ex ret. Tenth Nat. Bk. of 
N. Y. ». Green. 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 37G, 
379; inem. s. c, 3 Hun, 208. Disting'd in 
Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 
Daly, 220, 222 ; Water Conim'rs v. Burr, 56 
A". Y. 665, 667. Followed with Luby «. 
Hudson River R. R. C, 17 iV. Y. 131, and 
other cases, in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 160. 
Approved and followed (Admission of imma- 
terial evidence as ground for reversal) in 
Oleson j). Telford, 37 Wis. 327. Followed 
in O'Sullivan v. Roberts, 39 Super. Ct. (J. 
ttk S.) 360, 371 ; Havemeycr v. Haveineyer, 
43 Id. 522. 

v. Speers, 8 Alb. N. C. 383 ; s. c, 58 

How. Pr. 68. Rev'd in 21 Hun, 568 ; s. c, 
59 How. Pr. 421. 

• v. Alen, 1 2 Johns. 343. See Andrews i>. 

Beecker. Approved with Johnson v. Blood- 
good, 1 Johns. Cos.' 51 (Actual notice of 
assignment of chose in action, not neces- 
sary) in Tritt v Colwell, 31 Penn. 228. 



20 



ANDRES— ANDKZWS. 



Andres t. Wells, 7 Johns. 260. Collated 
(Liability for libel) with other cases in Bige. 
Cases on Torts, 111. Followed and approved 
in King v. Root, 4 Wend. 136. 

Andrew v. Dietrich. 14 Wend. 31 ; s. c, 12 
N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 527, with brief note. 
Criticised (False pretenses and larceny) in 
15 Am. L. Rev. 567. 

T. Newcomb, 32 K Y. 417. Quoted 

(Sale of things not yet in existence or not 
yet acquired by vendor) in 1 Benj. on Sales, 
§ 78> n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.), with Seymour 
n. Canandaigua, &c. R. R. Co., 25 Barb. 
284 ; Field v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 K Y. 
179. Collated in 30 Am. R. 56, re., as to the 
validity of chattel mortgages upon crops or 
property not in existence or to be acquired. 

v. N. Y. Bible and Prayer-Book Soci- 
ety, 4 Sandf. 156; s. c, SKY. Leg. Ubs. 
361. Rev'd, on another ground, in 8 K Y. 
559, n. ; and see Yates v. Yates, 9 Barb. 
324. Compare (Bequest to society) Betts v. 
Betts, 4 Abb. K C. 317. Cited (Trust for 
illegal object not executed) with other cases 
in 13 Am. L. Beg. K S. 66. Quoted (Per- 
petuities) in 1 Jarman on Wills, Randolph 
and Talcott Ed. 514, n. Commented upon 
(Execution of trusts by corporations) in 1 
Berry on Trusts. 3 Ed. § 45, re. 3. 

Andrews, Matter of, 22 Hun, 608, n. Fol- 
lowed (Defects in assessment) in Matter of 
Dennis, 22 Sun, 608. 

v. .Etna Life Ins. Co., 18 Bun, 163. 

Rev'd in 85 K Y. 334. 

v. Beecker, 1 Johns Cos. 411. Followed 

(Effect of release by assignor of chose in 
action) in Raymond v. Squire, li Johns. 49. 
Disregarded as a foreign authority, with 
Wardell v. Eden, 2 Johns. Cos. 121, n. a; 
Littlefield v. Storey, 3 Johns. 425 ; Ander- 
son 0. Van Alen, 12 Id. 343 ; in Mansfield 
v. Mansfield, 6 Conn. 559; s. c, 16 Am. 
Bee. 76, 81. Denied in Bulkley ». Landon, 
3 Conn. 76. See contra cases in the court 
of Kings Bench: Baucrman v. Radenius, 7 
Term R. 663 ; Crail v. D'Aeth. Id. 070. 
See in accord in the English Common Pleas: 
Legh v. Legh, 1 Bos. & P. 447. And see 1 
Campb. 492. Cited with Raymond v. 
Squire, 11 Johns. 47; Littlefield v. Storey, 3 
Johns. 425; Dawson v. Coles, T6 Johns. 51; 
Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. 675, and 
other cases, in 1 Taylor Ev. 653, to show 
that, contrary to the practice of the English 
trial courts, the equitable jurisdiction 
exercised by the trial courts in America 
enables them to exclude admissions of a 
nominal plaintiff as evidence against the real 
plaintiff. 

v. Betts, 8 Hun, 322. Cited as author- 
ity (Power of court of equity to direct sale 
of property held in common) in Story on 
Partn. 7 ed. § 439, n. Followed in Shchan 
v. Mahar, 17 Run, 130. 

v. Bond, 16 Barb. 633. Approved in 

Pomeroy on Remedies, § 660, as accurate- 
ly describing the office of the general 
denial. 



t. Dnrant, 11 K Y. 35. See Hubbell v. 

Denison; McConihe v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. 
Co. ; Reubens v. Joel. Commented upon 
(Sale of goods) in 1 Chitty on Contr. 531 ; 
n. z, 1 1 Am. ed. Discussed (Sale of specific 
chattels conditionally) in Benj. on Sales, 
§ 351, (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Explained in 
1 Id. §§ 398, 408, 410, 411, 412 (.Corbin's 
4 Am. ed.) Disting'd (When title to 
goods passes) in Higgins v. Murray, 73 K 
Y. 252, 254 ; Burrows v. Whitaker, 71 Id. 
291, 295 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 42. Relied on in 
Clarkson v. Stevens, 106 U. S. 505, 514. 
Followed and approved in McConihe v. N. 
Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 K Y. 495, 497. Ex- 
plained in Hiscox v. Harbeck, 2 Bosw. 506, 
514. But compare 1 Parsons Mar. L. 75. 
Approved in Edwards ». Elliott, 36 K J. L 
449, 452. 

y. , 18 K Y. 496. Qualified (Right 

of creditor to attack fraudulent assignment) 
with Reubens v. Joel, 13 K Y. 488, in 
Rinchey v. Stryker, 28 K Y. 45. Explained 
in Thayer v. Willet, 5 Bosw. 344, 360 ; s. c, 
9 Abb. Pr. 325, as not an authority as to 
sheriff's lien. 

v. dilenville Woolen Co., 11 Abb. Pr. 

K S. 78. Compare O'Brien •». Glenville 
Woolen Co., 50 K Y. 128. See subsequent 
decision in 50 K Y. 282. See Edwards v. 
Bodine. Decision in 50 K Y. disting'd 
(Damages on injunction) in McDonald v. 
James, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 76, 78 ; Troxell 
■v. Haines, 5 Daly, 389, 390; s. c, 19 Abb. 
Pr. N. S. 1 ; Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil 
Co., 50 N. Y. 335; Langdon v. Gray, 22 
Hun, 512; Disbrow v. Garcia, 52 N. Y. 
655. Disting'd with Corcoran n. Judson, 
24 K Y. 106; Newton v. Russell, 87 Id. 
527 ; which was followed in Randall v. Car- 
penter, 88 K Y. 293. 

— - v. Harrington, 19 Barb. 343. Dis- 
ting'd (Reference to statute in action for 
penalty) in Schoonmaker v. Brooks, 24 Hun, 
553, 555. 

y. Herriot, 4 Cow. 508; s. c, 8 K Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 468, with brief note. See 
Warren «. Lynch. Cited (Limitation of 
actions — what law governs) in Perkins v. 
Guy, 55 Miss. 153; s. c, 30 Am. R. 510, as 
having appended an elaborate note on the 
subject. A pproved (What gives jurisdiction 
of the person) in Fiske v. Anderson, 33 
Barb. 71, 75. Approved (Personal property 
as having no locality) in People v. Comm'rs 
of Taxes, Id. 116. 

y. Kecler, 19 Bun, 87. Aft'd, it seems, in 

90 K Y. 678. Applied (Interest) in Assoc, 
for Relief of Females v. Eajjleson, 60 Bow. 
Pr. 9, 12. 

v. Long, 19 Bun, 303. Rev'd in 79 N. Y. 

573. Further proceeding in 22 Bun, 24. 
See (Notice of appeal from justice's judg- 
ment) as to effect of Code Civ. Pro. §§ 3046, 
&c, Bishop v. Van Vechten, 10 Abb. K C. 
220, 224. Decision in 79 K Y. followed in 
Payne «. Terry, 21 Hun, 281, but without 
opinion. Followed (Appeals in actions com- 



ANDREWS— ANON YMOUS. 



21 



meticed in justices' courts) in Kincaid v. 
Richardson, 24 Hun, 137. Disting'd in 
Hoir u. Seaton, 18 Weekly. Dig. 510; Perry 
v. Round Lake Camp Meeting Assoc, 22 
Hun, 294. Cited in Cook v. Darrow, Id. 
306. 

T. Montgomery, 19 Johns. 16S; s. c, 10 

Am. Dec. 21 S, with note. See Borden v. 
Fitch ; Hitchcock v. Aiken ; Starbuck v. 
Murray. Followed (Effect of judgments of 
sister States) in Gulick v. Loder, 1 Green Law. 
(N. J.) 63; s. c, 23 Am. Dec. 711, with 
note, as having overruled Hubbel v. Cow- 
dr}', 5 Johns. 132. Followed in Aldrich v. 
Kinney, 4 Conn. 380; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 
151 ; where however Hitchcock v. Aiken, 1 
Cai. 460 ; Kilburn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. 
41; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 321, and other cases 
are followed, as to when such judgments 
are invalid. 

v. Murray, 33 Barb. 354. See Corn- 
ing v. McCullough; Miller v. Fenton. See 
(Nature of liability of stockholders, &c.) 
other cases collected in Chase v. Lord, 6 
Abb. N. 0. 258, 259, n. Otherwise (Con- 
tribution among trustees) now by statute 
(L. 1871, c. 657, am'd'g L. 1848, c. 40, § 12). 
So also on general principles, Nickerson v. 
Wheeler, 118 Mass. 295; Thomps. on Liab. 
of Off. 442. Contra, Potter on Corp. 401, 
§319. 

t. Raymond, 2 Supm. Ct. (7! & C.) 661. 

AfFd in 58 iV. Y. 676, but with no further 
opinion on the question of law. 

v. Rowan, 28 How. Pr. 126. See Mal- 

lory v. Norton. Opposed (Judgment for 
interfering with exempt property) to Mal- 
lory v. Norton, 21 Barb. 424. 

v. Wallege. See Bank of Poughkeepsie 

■0. Hasbrouck. 

Andrus v. Waring. See Buel v. Gordon ; 
Woods v. Rowan. 

Angel v. Town of Hnme, 17 Han, 374. Ap- 
proved and followed (Validity of town bonds) 
in Rich v. Town of Seneca Falls, 8 Fed. Rep. 
852. Approved and followed (Town bonds 
issued under L. 1869, c. 907, not nullified 
by L. 1871, c. 925) in Syracuse Savings B'k 
v. Town of Seneca Falls, 21 Hun, 304 ; 
afFd in 86 N. Y. 317, 321. 

Angell v. Lawtoo, 14 Hun, 70. Appeal dis- 
missed in 76 N. Y. 540. 

Angevine's Estate, 1 Tuck. 178, 195. First 
decision of the Supreme Court reported 
as Angevine v. Angevine, 48 Barb. 417. 

Angeviue v. Angevine, 48 Barb. 417. See 
later decision reported in Angevine's Estate, 
1 Tuck. 178, 195, denying authority for 
ordering new trial before jury. 

Angrave v. Stone, 25 How. Pr. 167. Affd 
in 45 Barb. 35; Angus v. Dunscomb, 8 
How. Pi: 14. Collated (Arrest of person 
acting in fiduciary capacity) with other 
cases in Thompson on Prov. Rem. 33. 

Auibal y. Hunter, 6 How. Pr. 255. See, in 
accord (Answer in libel or slander), Bud- 
dington v. Davis, 6 How. Pr. 401. 

Annett v. Foster, 1 Daly, 502. Followed 



(Liability of carrier) in Speed v. Atlantic & 
Pacific K. R. Co., 71 Mo. 303, 310. 

v. Kerr. 2 Robt. 556; s. c, 28 How. Pr. 

324. Affd, in 35 N. Y. 256, as Annett v. 
Terry, on the ground that the evidence 
tended to show fraud as against the sure- 
ties, and without passing on the other ques- 
tions. See Stilvvell «. Mills. Approved 
(Limitations on proceedings against sureties 
on bonds of executors, &c.) in Scofield v. 
Adriance, 1 Bern. 196; s. c, as Estate of 
Scofield, 3 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne), 323 
(Surrogate's authority to order removed 
administrator to account). Disting'd (Sur- 
rogate's authority to decree payment of 
assets) in Gerould v. Wilson, 81 JV. Y. 573, 
583. 

— v. Terry. 35 JST. Y. 236. See Annett 
v. Kerr; Bartlett v. Campbell. Relied 
on (Surrogate's decree, when not to be 
impeached), in Thayer v. Clark, 4 Abb. 
Ct. App. Dec. 391, 395. Upheld (Effect of 
judgment against principal), citing many 
cases, in Stevens «. Shafer, 48 Wis. 54; s. c, 
33 Am. Dec. 793, with note. 

Annsincli v. Northrop, 2 Month. L. Bui. 67. 
Motion to vacate order denied in Amsinck 
v. North, 62 How. Pr. 114; abridg't s. c, 12 
Weekly Dig. 573. 

Anonymous, 2 Abb. N. C. 56. See also ("Ex- 
ception " in a deed) Langdon v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 6 Abb. N. C. 314, n. / 

■ — -, SAbb.K C. 161. Reviewed (References 
in divorce cases) with other cases, in Mc- 
Cleary v. McCleary, 30 Hun, 156. See 
(Judgment in matrimonial causes), Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 1229. n. 

, 6 Abb. Pr. 319, n. Disting'd (Lia- 
bility of partner for fraud of copartner) in 
Hanover Co. v. Sheldon, 9 Id. 240, 241; 
Contra, Wetmore «. Earle, 9 Abb. Pr. 58, n. 

— , 17 Alb. Pr. 48. Disting'd (Pleading in 
actions for divorce) in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 
61 iv". Y. 398, 410. See (Counter-claim in 
matrimonial action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 1770, n. 

, 18 Abb. Pr. 87. Compare (Creditor's 

actions) Kerr v. Blodgett, "48 If. Y. 62; 
modifing 10 Abb. Pr. 137; s. c, 25 How. Pr. 
308. 

, 2 Cai. 261. Overruled (Amendment of 

declaration in ejectment) in Jackson v. 
Smith, 6 Cow. 39. 

, 1 Duer, 613; Tracy v. Leland.2 Sandf. 

729. Examined and disapproved*(Right of 
arrest for tort of wife) in Solomon v. Waas. 
2 Hilt. 179. Opposed with Schaus u. 
Putscher, 16^66. Pr. 353; Solomons. Waas, 
2 Hilt. 179, in Muser o. Miller, 12 Abb. IT. 
C. 306, n. 

, 4 How. Pr. 112. Overruled (Validity of 

judgment taken without process served, or 
appearance by attorney) in Williams v. Van 
Valkenburgh, 16 How. Pr. 145, 152. 

, 6 How. Pr. 160. Disapproved (Evidence 

of character, in action for slander) in Anony- 
mous, 8 How. Pr. 434. 

, 59 N. Y. S13; reported bclojvas Froude 



22 



ANONYMOUS— ABEND. 



v. Froude, 1 Hun, 76. Followed (Order 
not appealable) in Claflin v. Baere, 80 J¥. T. 
642. 

, 67 K Y. 598. Reported below as Roe- 

bling v. Duncan, in 8 Hun, 502. Disting'd 
(Arrest for fraud) in Ellison v. Bernstein, 
60 How. Pr. 148. 

, 10 Paige, 20. Dissented from (As- 
signees in bankruptcy as parties to fore- 
closure proceedings) in Oliver «. Cunning- 
ham, 6 Fed. Rep. 60. Doubted (Rights of 
one -who acquires title from mortgagor after 
commencement of suit to foreclose mortgage) 
in Stout v. Lye; 13 Otto (C S.) 69. ' 

, 1 Wend. 90. Overruled (Length of no- 
tice) in Olcott v. Robinson, 21 If. Y. 150, 
154; Sheldon v. Wright, 5 jV". Y. 51 7, 523. 

, 1 Wend. 108. Doubted (Attorney's 

authority in conducting suit) in Horton v. 
Champlin, 12 R. 1. 550; s. c, 34 Am. R. 
723. 

, 5 Wend. 82. Cited (Motion— time of 

making) with other cases, in Whipple v. 
Williams, 4 Sow. Pr. 30. 

, 18 Wend. 578. Followed (Service by 

leaving papers in office) in Haight ». Moore, 
36 Super. Gt. (_J. & S.) 294. 

, 19 Wend. 225. See (Increased costs) 

Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3258, n. 

Anonymous v. Gelpcke, 5 Hun, 245. See 
other cases collated (Trustees' compromises) 
in Matter of Youngs, 5 Abb. N. C. 346, 
354, n. Quoted in Burrill on Assign. % 427, 
n. 2, 4 Ed. See form of exceptions to 
referee's report in 1 Abb. N. C. 188, n. 

Ansonia Brass, &c. Co. r. Babbitt. 8 Hun, 
157. See a further decision in 74 J¥. Y. 395. 
Decision in 74 N. Y. disting'd (Proof of 
debt in bankruptcy, when waiver of credit- 
or's right to share in dividends of assigned 
estate) in Matter of Woodward, 67 How. Pr. 
359. Disting'd (Effect of order of U. 
S. court staying sheriff's proceedings) in 
Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Conner, 67 
How. Pr. 157; s. c, 6 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 
173. 

v. New Lamp Chimney Co., 64 Barb. 

435. Affd in 53 N. Y. 123; s. c, 13 Am. 
R. 476; without passing on the question 
of jurisdiction, and the latter decision 
affd in 91 U. S. 656; s. c, 13 Alb. L. 
J. 74, as New Lamp Chimney Co. ». An- 
sonia Brass, &c. Co. See Haxtun v. Corse. 
Decision in 53 N. Y. 123, followed (Effect 
of proof of debt against bankrupt corpora- 
tion) in Birmingham Nat B'k o. Keck, 55 
How. Pr. 230. Applied (Construing section 
of bankrupt law) in Libbey v. Strasburger, 
14 Hun, 120. 

v. Pratt, 10 Run, 443. Compare (Bank- 
ruptcy — jurisdiction) Wheelock v. Lee, 5 
Abb. N. G. 72. 

Autlioine v. Coit. 2 Hall, 40; Marquand v. 
Webb, 16 Johns. 89; Osgood v. Manhattan 
Ins. Co., 3 Cow. 612; Davis v. Darrow, 12 
Wend. 65. Doubted (New trial because of 
admission of improper evidence) in Crary v. 
Sprague, 12 Wei.d. 41. 



Anthony t. Brouwer, 31 How. Pr. 128. 
Affd, as Gill v. Brouwer, in 37 JST. Y. 549; 
s. c, 5 Transc. App. 86. 

t. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198. Affd in 74 

Jf. Y. 613, on opinion of Gilbert, J. 

T. Smith, 4 Bosw. 503. Overruled (Now- 
trial not to be granted after judgment) in 
Tracey v. Altmeyer, 46 iv". Y. 598. 

Anthony Street, Matter of, 20 Wend. 618. 
See also (Discontinuance) Matter of Wash- 
ington Park, 56 N. Y. 144, 156. 

Appleby t. Brown, 24 K Y. 143 ; s. c , less 
fully, 23 How. Pr. 207, where, however, the 
opinion of Davies, J., is given in full. 

t. Erie Co. Savings Bank, 62 N. Y. 12. 

Disting'd (Negligence in payment by savings 
banks) in Allen v. W'msburgh Savings B'k, 
69 N. Y. 320. 

T. Robinson,. 44 Barb. 316. Disting'd 

(Effect of giving bail) in Wemple v. Glavin, 
5 Abb. N. C. 360, 367- 

Appleton v. Bowles, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
568. Rev'd as Miller v. Bowles, in 58 K 
Y 253 

t. YVater Comm'rs of N. T., 2 Hill, 432. 

Compare (Liability of city officers) Sage v. 
City of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. JV. C. 279. Ex- 
plained in Clarissey v. Metropolitan Fire 
Department, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 352, 363 ; s. 
c, 1 Sweeny, 224. 

Appley t. Trustees of Montank, 38 Barb. 
275. Folio wed (Construction of L. 1852, c. 
139, incorporating proprietors of Montauk 
lands) in Griunell v. Mint urn, 16 Hun, 134. 

Aptliorpe y. Comstock, Hopk. 143. Affd in 
8 Cow. 386. 

Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Run, 146.. Quoted 
(Assignment for benefit of creditors, to cred- 
itors) in Burrill on Assign. § 12, n. 2, 4 ed. 

Arcularius v. Gaisenhainer, 3 Bradf. 64; 
Sweet v. Gaisenhainer, Id. 114. Affd as 
Arcularius v. Sweet, in 25 Barb. 403. 

Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 3 Hun, 195; 
s. c. 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 63 ; rev'd in 69 
JV. Y. 470 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 221 ; modifying 
54 Barb. 559 ; and see 66 Barb. 257. Con- 
trary to decision in 69 If. Y. (Tow-boats 
as carriers* see Bussey v. Mississippi Val. 
Transp. Co., 24 La. Ann. 165; s. c, 13 Am. 
R. 120 ; and see Abb. Tr. Ev. 561. Ap- 
proved with Silliman v. Lewis, 49 JST. Y. 
379, and Milton «. Hudson Riv. Steamboat 
Co., 37 N~. Y. 210, as in substantial accord 
with the federal authorities, in The M. J. 
Cummings, U. S. Dis. Ct. N. D. N. Y. 1883, 
18 Fed. Rep. 184. Disting'd (Imputing neg- 
ligence of carrier) in Perry v. Lansing, l7 
Hun, 34, 37. 

Ardeu v. Ardcn, 1 Johns. Ch. 3^3. See Elli- 
son v. Moffat t. See to the contrary (Pre- 
sumption of payment) Dedlake ». Robb, 1 
Woods, 680 ; sea also Abb. Tr. Jiv. 812. 

v. Patterson, 5 Johns. Ch. 44. Ex- 
plained and criticised (Champerty and main- 
tenance) in Story on Eg. 11 ed. 1050, n. 
Compare Thalheimer •». Brinckerhoft, 3 Cow. 
623. 

Arend y. Liverpool, N. Y. & Phil. Steam- 



AEENT— ARNOLD. 



23 



ship Co., 6 Latin. 457 ; s. c, more fully, in 
64 Barb. 118; afi'd, it seems, in 53 W. Y. 
606 ; but without opinion. 

Arcnt v. Squire, 1 Daly, ,347. See Piatt v. 
Hibbard. Compare (Burden of proof in 
action against carrier) Lamb v. Camden & 
Amboy R. R. & Trans. Co., 46 H. Y. 
271. 

Areson v. Areson, 5 Bill, 410. Rev'd in 3 
Den. 458. 

Arga 1 1 v. Jacobs, 56 How. Pr. 167. Aft'd in 21 
Hun, 114, which was afTd in 87 K Y. 110. 
Followed (Motion for new trial) in Newhall 
v. Apploton, 40 Super: Ct. (J. &. S.) 6, 8. 

t. Pitts. 78 N. Y. 243. Disting'd (Judg- 
ment by default) in Ballard v. Sherwood, 
85 H. Y. 253, 256. 

v. Smith, 3 Denio, 435. Discussed 

(Limited partnership— error in publication 
of amount contributed by special partner) in 
1 Pars, on Contr. 216, n. r. 

Argus Co. t. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 7 Lans. 
364. Approved, and in effect aff'd by 
ordering judgment on the stipulation, in 55 
N. Y. 495 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 296. Decision 
in 55 N. Y. quoted and explained (Statute 
of Frauds — note or memorandum in writing 
— consideration) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 251, n. 
46 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.) 

Arkell t. Commerce Ins. Co., 7 Hun, 455; 
Aff'd in 69 N. Y. 191 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 
168.. 

Armour v. Michigan Cent. R. R. Co., 65 H. 
Y. 111. See Dickerson v. Seelye. Said 
(Negotiability of bills of lading) in 9 
Weekly Cinn. L. B. 1, to be unsupported by 
authority in other States. 

Armsby v. People, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.y 
157. Aff'd as Kelley v. People, 55 Ji. Y. 
565 ; s. c, 14 Am. R. 342. 

Armstrong y. Byrne, 1 Edw. Ch. 79. Dis- 
cussed (Assignment for benefit of creditors 
— releases) in Burrill on Assign. § 192, 4 Ed. 
Quoted in Id. § 196. Commented upon in 
Bishop on Assign. § 198. 

v. Craig, 18 Barb. 387. Disapproved 

(New trial in justice's court) by Sheldon, 
J., in Same v. Morrison, 1 Sheld. 385. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. 

v. Cummings, 2 Monthly L. Bui. 14. 

Rev'd in 20 Hun, 313; s. c, more fully, 58 
How. Pr. 313. CompaTe (Injunction against 
summary proceedings) Code Civ. Pro. § 
2265. 

v. -, 2 Monthly L. Bui. 94; s. c, 

more fully, in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 38, n. Disting'd 
(Supplementary proceedings) in Bean v. 
Tonnele, 24 Hun, 853; s. c, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 
33, 38. 

v. -^— , 22 Hun, 570. Disting'd (Set off 

of costs) in Moloughney v. Kavanagh, 3 Civ. 
Pro. L'. (Browne) 253; Tuns tali v. Wiuton, 
5 Monthly I. Bui. 42. 

v. Cnshney, 43 Barb. 340. See (Proof 

of assignment) for the stricter common law 
rule, Palmer v. Merrill, 6 Cush. 282 ; see 
also Abb. Tr. Ev. 2. 

t. Dubois, 1 446. Ct. App. Dec. 11. 



Disting'd (Liability for acts of attorney) 
in Clark v. Woodruff, 83 N. Y. 518, 
526. 

v. Foote, 19 How. Pr. 237. Rev'd in 11 

Abb. Pr. 384. 

v. (Jiirrow, 6 Cow. 465. Examined 

(Ratification of act done under authority 
conferred by law) in Farmer's Loan & Trust 
Co. v. Walworth, 1 N. Y. 433, 445. Applied 
in Townsend v. Olin, 5 Wend. 210. Dis- 
ting'd (Effect of giving note as payment) in 
Van Ostrand v. Reed, 1 Wend. 430; Lewis 
v. Lozee, 3 Wend. 82. Followed (Action 
against official collecting money) in Murdock 
v. Aikin, 29 Barb. 66. Disting'd in Dygert 
v. Crane, 1 Wend. 541 ; Every v. Edgerton, 
7 Wend. 262. Disting'd (Discharge of sheriff 
by acts of party) in Sheldon v. Paine, 10 if. 
Y. 401 ; Walden v. Davison, 15 Wend. 580; 
Webber v. Blunt, 19 Wend. 189; see also 
Hilliard s. Austin, 17 Barb. 144. Disting'd 
(Affirmance of security taken by sheriff) in 
Cook v. Freud„nthal, 80 N. Y. 211. 

v. Gilchrist, 2 Johns. Cos. 424 ; s. c, 1 

N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 564, with brief note 
on jurisdiction of courts of chancery. 

v. McDonald, 10 Barb. 300. Opposed 

(Evidence of legitimacy necessary) in Haight 
b. Wright, 20 How. Pr. 91. Criticised 
(Proof necessary to sustain father's action 
for child's services) as unsound in Abb. Tr. 
Ed. 382. Cited with other cases in 12 Am. 
L. Reg. XT. S. 720. 

— r- y. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 66 Barb. 
' 437. AfTd, it seems, in 53 2f. Y. 623. 

v. People. 70 Jf. Y. 38. See (Com- 
munications between attorney and client) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 835, n. 

v. Percys 5 Wend. 536. Examined (Rule 

of damages) in Brichard v. Booth, 4 Wise. 
74. 

v. Smith, 44 Barb. 120. Disting'd (Opin- 
ion of witness) in Townsend v. Brundage, 4 
Han, 264. 

v. Wing, 10 Huft, 520. Disting'd (Evi- 
dence to sustain action against heir at-law 
for debt of ancestor) in Blossom v. Hatfield, 
24 Hun. 275. 

Arnold, Matter of, 60 K Y. 26. Approved 
(Assessments, when not vacated) in Dolan 
■v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y , 62 N. Y. 472. Dis- 
ting'd in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Id. 
580. Followed in Matter of Furniss, 4 Hun, 
624. 

v. Angell. 38 Super. Ct (J. & S.) 27. 

Rev'd in 62 H. Y. 508. Decision in 62 H. 
Y. followed (Recovery must be on cause 
of action in complaint) in Hollisterr. Engle- 
hart, 11 Hun, 446. Disting'd (Accounting, 
as between partners), in Smith v. Bodine, 74 
JV. Y. 30, 33. Quoted and collated (Lease to 
married woman) with other cases in Me- 
Adam Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 52. 

v. Camp. 12 Johns. 409 ; s. c, 7 Am. 

Dec. 328, with note. See Olcott v. Rath- 
bone. Shown in note in 7 Am. Dec. to have 
been followed in several States — Millard v. 
Thorn, 56 2V. Y. 406, being referred to as 



21 



ARNOLD— ARTHUR 



showing the principle on which its decision 
rests. Disapproved (Partner's note given for 
firm debt) in Cole v. Sackett, 1 Hill, 516, 
which see below. Overruled, also, by Way- 
dell v. Luer, 5 Hill, 448, which was, how- 
ever, rev'd in 3 Den. 410, where Arnold v. 
Camp was re-aff'd. Collated with Van Eps 
®. Dillaye, 6 Barb. 244, and other cases, in 1 
Am. Bee. 5, n., as according with the well 
established doctrine. 

v. Crane, 8 Johns. 79. See Roget v. 

Merritt ; Wilson v. Force. Followed, with 
Pierce v. Crafts, 12 Id. 90 (Action for money 
had and received, against maker or indorser), 
in Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 Conn. 71 ; s. c, 
13 Am. Dec. 37. 

v. Foot, 12 Wend. 330. See Merritt v. 

Brinkerhoff. Followed (Right of land-owner 
to stop flow of water-course, having origin 
on his land), in Howe v. Norman, 13 £. I. 
488. 

— v. Gilbert, 3 Sandf. Ch. 531. Rev'd, in 
part, in 5 Bwrb. 190; s. c, 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 
209. 

v. Halenbrake, 5 Wend. 33. Explained 

(Canal-boatmen as common carriers) in 
Ang. on Oarr. § 81, 5 ed. Collated (Agency 
implied from course of dealing) with other 
cases, and commented upon, in 1 Hare & W. 
Am. Lead. Cos. 5 Ed. 692. 

t. Hudson River R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 

108; rev'd, on all the points, in 55 N. Y. 
661. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co. 

v. Kinlock, 50 Barb. 44. Said in 6 Alb. 

L. J. 196 to have been rev'd, by Court of 
Appeals, in Sept. 1870. 

v. Nichols. 64 H. Y. 117. Cited, with 

other cases, in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 
§ 14S, n., to show when a partnership may 
be made liable for debts contracted prior to 
its existence. 

v. Pacific Mnt. Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 83. 

Rev'd in 78 N. Y. 7. 

v. Patrick, 6 Paige, 310. Approved 

(General lien of a judgment subordinate to 
equity) in Sieman v. Austin, 33 Barb. 9, 20. 

■ v. Roes, 18 N. Y. 57. Points of counsel 

in 17 Haw Pr. 35. 

y. Robertson, 3 Daly, 298. Appeal 

dismissed, it seems, in 50 N. Y. 683. 

v. Rock River Valley Union R. R.Co., 5 

Duer, 207. Included (Negotiable note, con- 
taining other provisions besides that for pay- 
ment of money) in 1 Ames Oases on B. & 
N. 61. Followed in Collins o. Bradbury, 
64 Me. 37; Heard v. Dubuque County 
Bank, 8 Nev. 10; s. c, 30 Am. It. 811, 
813. 

v. Sandford, 14 Johns. 417. Explained 

(Judgment of revocatur) in Camp v. Bennett, 
16 Wend. 48. Followed (Appearance by 
infant without guardian, error in fact) in 
McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. 

v. Sntt'olk Rank, 27 Barb. 424. Dis- 

ting'd (Lien on stock) in Driscoll v. West, 
&c. Manuf'g Co., 59 JV. Y. 96, 108. Fol- 
lowed (Damages — valuation of stock) in Con- 



tinental Tel. Co. «. Nelson, 49 Super. Gt. 

{J. & S.) 197. 
V. Tullinadge, 19 Wend. 527. Overruled 

(Parties in action on bond given to several) 

in Pearce s. Hitchcock, 2 -ZV. Y. 388. 
V. Thomas, 2 How. Pr. 91. Approved 

(Order of arrest, when extinguished) in 

People ex rel. Roberts v. Bo we. SI H. Y. 45; 

s. c, 8 Abb K C. 234. 
Arnot v. Erie Ry. Co., 5 Hun, 608. Afi'd in 

67 K Y. 315. 

v. McClure, 4 Den. 41. See (Necessity 

of affidavits on foreclosure by advertise- 
ment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. 

y. Pittston & E. Coal Co., 2 Hun, 591 ; 

s. c, 5 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 143. Rev'd in 

68 N. Y. 558; s. c, 23 Am. R. 190. See 
Hull v. Ruggles, 68 K Y. 558. Decision 
in 68 JT. Y. followed (Contracts against pub- 
lic policy) in Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 
447; s. c, 41 Am. B. 170; McBirney & 
Johnston White Lead Co. v. Consolidated 
Lead Co., 9 Cin. Law Bui. 3i0. Disting'd 
in Lewin v. Johnson, 32 Hun, 408. 

Y. Post, 6 Hill, 65. Rev'd in 2 Den. 344. 

See Jackson v. Crafts. The latter judgment 
explained in Kortright ■». Cady, 21 N. Y. 
343, as not conflicting with the doctrine that 
tender before foreclosure discharges the 
lien. 

Arnoux v. Phelan, 21 How. Pr. S8. Approved 
(Taxing stenographer's fees as costs) in Gil- 
man e. Oliver, 14 Abb. Pr. 174, 176. 

Artcher v. Doug-lass, 5 Den. 509. See Hub- 
bard i>. Gurney. Cited with other cases as 
authority (Admissibility of parol evidence 
to show that party to note signed as surety) 
in Ward v. Stout, 32 111. 399. 

v. Whaleii, 1 Wend. 179; Jackson v. 

Catlin, 2 Johns. 248; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 415. 
Reviewed with other cases in State Bank «.. 
Evans, 3 Green (N~. J.) 155; s. c, 28 Am. 
Dec. 400-404, with note, as to what is an 
escrow. 

v. Zeh. 5 Hill, 200; s. c. 16 N. Y. Com. L. 

Law. ed. 102, with brief note on agreements 
not to be performed within a year. Dis- 
ting'd and applied (Part payment, &c. 
required by statute of frauds) in Brabin v. 
Hyde, 30 Barb. 265, which was rev'd in 32 
N. Y. 523, applying Artcher v. Zeh. Applied 
in Mattice v. Allen, 33 Barb. 545. Followed 
in Ely v. Ormsby, 12 Barb. 571 ; Brand v. 
Brand, 49 Barb. 348. Approved in Shind- 
ler v. Houston, 1 H. Y. 270. Quoted and 
discussed in Brown ifn Stat, of Frauds, § 
342,-ied. ; 3 Pars, on Con.tr. 41, n. n.; 1 Ben}, 
on Sales, g 139, n. 1 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 
Applied (Contracts not to be performed 
within a year) in Dresser ». Dresser, 35 
Barb. 576. Relied on in Ganlt i>. Brown, 48 
& H. 183; s. c, 2 Am. R. 210, 218. 

Arthur ?. Arthur, 10 Barb. 9. ^ee Shotwell 
■o. Murray. Approved (Inadmissibility of 
parol evidence to control will) in Myres v. 
Myres, 23 How. Pr. 410, 411. Limited 
(Reformation of will; in O'Donnell v. Har- 
mon, 3 Daly, 424. 



ARTHUR— ASTOR. 



23 



t. Brooks, 14 Barb. 533. Opposed 

(Form of denial) in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 If. 
Y. 61. Disapproved (Frivolous answer) 
with Blake v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240, in 
Chapman v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr. 281. 
Criticised and disapproved (Hypothetical 
pleadings) with Boyce v. Brown, 7 Barb. 
80, in Brown s. Byckman, 12 How. Pr. 313. 

■ v. Case, 1 Paige, 447. Aff'd, as Case v. 

Haight, in 3 Wend. 632. Quoted and dis- 
cussed (Diversion and detention of water), 
in Wood on Nuisances, 2 ed. § 364. 

T. Griswold, 2 Hun, 606; s. c, 16 Abb. 

Pr. If. S. 235; mem. of s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gt. 
(7. & G.) 696. Appeal dismissed, in 60 N. 
Y. 143. See former decision, in 55 N. Y. 
400. 

y. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 78 If. Y. 

462. For "defendant's," in ninth line from 
bottom, read "plaintiff's." 

Arthurton v. Dalley, 20 How. Pr. 311. See 
to the contrary, as to the effect of a judg- 
ment in merging the original cause of action, 
so as to prevent the defendant therein from 
being arrested on the ground of fraud, Mc- 
Butt v. Hirsch, 4 Abb. Pr. 441 ; Mallory v. 
Leach, 23 How. Pr. 510, 511 ; s. c, li Abb. 
Pr. 449, n. Arthurton e. Dalley is, how- 
over, cited in and appears to accord with 
Baxter v. Drake, 61 How. Pr. 365; s. c, 85 
If. Y. 502; s.c, 1 Civ. Pro. £.228; see it also 
cited in 8 Abb. N. C. 197, n., and relied on 
in Greenbaum v. Stein, 2 Daly, 223. See 
also, Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 552, n. 

Artisans' Bank y. Backus, 31 How. Pr. 242. 
AfFd in 36 AT Y. 100; s. c. 3 Abb. Pr. If. 
S. 273. See Cook v. Litchfield. See 
authorities cited (Negotiable paper — altera- 
tions) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 406, n. 9. 

y. Treadwell, 34 Barb. 553. Confirmed 

by subsequent decision reported as Van 
Alstyne v. Cook, 25 A". Y. 489. See Innes 
v. Lansing; Van Alstyne v. Cook. Dis- 
cussed (Partnership — appointment of re- 
ceiver) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 384, Wood's 
Am. ed. 

Ash v. Coleman, 24 Barb. 645. Disting'd 
(Action for construction of will — when main- 
tainable) in Onderdonk v. Mott, 34 Id. 106, 
113. 

y. Putnam, 1 Hill, 302. Opposed (Effect 

of fraud in invalidating transfer) in Stevens 
v. Hyde, 32 Barb. 171, 175, 177, 179. Fol- 
lowed in Chaffee v. Fort, 2 Bans. 81, 89. 
Commented on in Rawles v. Deshler, 1 
Buffalo Super. Gt. 48 ; Sturtevant v. Orser, 
24 AT Y. 542. Explained (Rescission of 
contract of sale) in Blanchard v. Trim, 38 If. 
Y. 228. 

Ashley v. Marshall, 30 Barb. 426; s. c, 9 
Abb. Pr. 361; 19 How. Pr. 110. Aft'd, in. 
29 AT Y. 494. Decision in 29 AT Y. applied 
(Counter claims arising after commencement 
of action) in Howard v. Johnston, 82 If. Y. 
271, 275. 

Ash ton v. Jones, 3 Barb. Oh. 397. See Grant 
■o. Vansehoonhoven, below. 

Aspinwall y. Baleh, 7 Daly, 200; s. c, more 



fully, 4 Abb. AT C. 193. Cited and compared 
(Depreciation of purchase at judicial sale) 
in 25 MoaTc Eng. 71. 

y. Mryer, 2 Sandf. 180. Affd, as How- 
land v. Myer, 3 N. P. 290. Followed 
(Validity of transfer of note by officer of 
insurance company, without previous resolu- 
tion of directors), in Brookman v. Metcalf, 5 
Bosw. 429, 442. 

v. Torrence, 1 Bans. 381. As to right 

to contribution, confirmed on further decision 
in Aspinwall v. Sacchi, 57 AT Y. 831. 

Astie v. Leeining, 53 How. Pr. 397; s. c, 3 
Abb. N. O. 25. See (Effect of verified 
answer on application to dissolve injunc- 
tion) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 630, n. 

Astor, Matter of, 50 N. Y. 363. Disting'd 
(Effect of failure to publish ordinance) in 
Mooro o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 AT Y. 249 ; 
s. c, 29 Am. R. 134. Followed (Desig- 
nation of newspaper) in Matter of Phillips, 
60 AT Y. 16, 24. Disting'd in Matter of 
Anderson, 60 AT Y. 457, 461; Matter of 
Burke, 62 AT Y. 224, 227. 

, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & O.) 488. Affd in 56 

AT Y 625. 

, 53 N. Y. 617. Disting'd (Validity of 

assessments) in Matter of Peugnet, 67 AT IT 
443; Matter of Marsh, 21 Hun, 582. 

y. Hoyt, 5 Wend. 603. Explained (Con- 
tinuous breach of covenant in lease) and 
disting'd in Coffin <o. Talman, 8 AT Y. 465., 
Applied (Jurisdiction of equity to adjust 
rights in relation to sums assessed) in 
Williams v. Craig, 2 Edw. Ch. 303. Fol- 
lowed (Covenant to pay assessments runs 
with land) in Kearny v. Post, 1 Sandf. 110. 
Applied (Apportioning amount assessed for 
damage- in opening street) in Coutant v. 
Catlin, ~2 Sandf. Ch. 485; Matter of John 
St., 19 Wend. 661. Applied (Rights of mort- 
gagee of term) in Walton v. Cronly, 14 
Wend. 65. Applied (Effect of adverse 
claim to award made for damages to prop- 
erty) with Hatch d. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 82 AT 
Y. 436; and Matter of Dept. of Parks, 73 
If. Y. 560; disting'd in Barnes v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y., 27 Hun, 236. 

v. L'Amoreux, 4 Sandf. 524. Rev'd, in 

8 If. Y. 107. See Marquat v. Marquat. 
Decision in 8 AT Y. explained (Judgment on 
reversal) in Edmonston v. McLoud, 16 AT 
Y. 543; Griffin v. Marquardt, 17 V. Y. 28. 
See also Marquart v. Marquart, below. Ex- 
plained (Assignment of lease) in Tate v. 
McCormick, 23 Hun, 218, 221. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 37 Super. Ct. {J. 

& S.) 539. Rev'd in 39 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
120; which was aff'd in 62 AT Y. 580. 
Decision in 62 ivT Y. ; cited (Construction 
of statute) iu dissenting opinion of Millek, 
J., iu Matter of Deering, 85 If. Y. 1, 12, 17. 
Followed Vacation of assessments for want 
of publication) in Dolan o. Mayor, &c. of N. 
Y., 62 AT. Y. 472. 

v. Miller, 2 Paige, 68. Rev'd as Astor 

v. Hoyt, in 5 Wend. 603, which see, above. 
Disting'd (Jurisdiction of equity in adjust- 



26 



ASTOR— ATLANTIC. 



inp: claims for taxes) in Petty v. Fogle, 16 
W. Va. 497, 520. Approved (Covenants 
running with the land) and cases cited, in 2 
Am. L. Reg. JT. S. 262. 

T. Turner, 11 Paige, 436. Disting'd 

(Receiver in foreclosure) in Syracuse City 
Bank «. Tallman, 31 Barb. 201, 210. Ap- 
plied in Rider v. Vrooman, 12 Hun, 299. 

v. Union Ins. Co.. 7 Cow. 202. See 

Coit v. Commercial Ins. Co. Cited (Evi- 
dence of usage) with other cases, in 2 Taylor 
on Ev. 1004. 

Atcherson v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 6 
Abb. Pr. JT. S. 329. Followed (Remedy 
of laborer against railroad company, for 
indebtedness of contractors) on principle, 
notwithstanding that the precise point was 
not held by a majority of the court, in 
Balch ». N. Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co., 
46 JT. 7. 521. 

Atclieson v. Million, 43 JT. 7. 147; s. c, 3 
Am. R. 678. See Doolin v. Ward. Dis- 
approved (Contracts concerning bidding for 
public works), as against principle and 
authority, in Breslin 8. Brown, 24 Ohio St. 
565; s. c, 15 Am. R. 632. Disting'd in 
Marsh v. Russell, 66 JT. 7. 292. 

Atkins v. Barrett, . 19 Barb. 643. See 
Gazley 8. Price. Quoted (Contract for sale 
of real property) in Chitty on Contr. 429, 
n. o, 11 Am. ed. 

v. Elwell, 45 JT. 7. 753. Compared 

and discussed (False representations) in 
Livingston •». Keech, 34 Super. Ct. {J .& S.) 
557. Compared in Morehouse v. Yeager, 41 
Super. Ct, (J. & <S'.)135, 148. 

■ v. Kinnan, 20 Wend. 241; s. c, 32 

Am. Dec. 534, with note respecting statutory 
authority to convey title of another, and on 
other points. Collated (Form and contents 
of administrator's deed) with Sheldon v. 
Wright, 5 JT. 7. 497, and other cases, in 
56 Am. Dec. 55, n. 

v. Lefever, 5 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 221. Dis- 
ting'd (Several bills of costs) in Williams «. 
; Cassady, 22 Bun, 180, 182. 

— v. Sitxton, 77 JT. 7. 196. See Menagh 
8. Whitwell. For "plaintiff," in third line 
of statement of case, read " defendant." 

Atkinson v. Great Western Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 
1. Rcv'd in 65 JT. 7. 532. Decision in 4 
Daly ; cited (Barratry — fraud) in 3 Rent 
Gom. 305, n. 1 (Holmes ed.), as containing 
an elaborate examination of the cases on the 
subject. Explained in Borland ». Mercantile 
Mutual Ins. Co., 46 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 
445. 

v. Manks, 1 Gow. 691. See Cook v. Sat- 

terlee. Cited as authority (Consideration 
of bill payable in specific articles) in Green- 
lees Ransom Co. 8. Berne, 12 Weekly L. B. 
100. 

T . Sewine, 11 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 384. See 

(Relation back of title of receiver in supple- 
mentary proceedings) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, 
§ 2469, n. 

Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Barnes, 
39 Super. Ct. (J.&-8.) 40. Affd in 64 



JT. 7. 385. See another decision in 39 
Super. Ct. 357. Decision in 64 JT. 7. ap- 
plied (Liability of sureties on official bond) 
with Supervisors of Monroe 8. Otis, 62 
JT. 7. 88, in BostWick «. Van Voorhis, 91 
JT. 7. 353. Approved; with Hunt v. Ro- 
berts, 45 JT. 7. 691, in City Ins. Co. v. Ro- 
berts, Hamilton Co. Ohio Distr. Ct. 12 Am. 
' L Ree. 746. A motion in a case of this- 
name said in 12 Alb. L. J. 835, to have been 
granted by the Court of Appeals, Nov. 16, 
1875. 

Atlantic Bank v. Franklin, 64 Barb. 449. 
Rev'd on the ground that there was no 
definite and valid agreement for forbear- 
ance, such as to constitute plaintiffs bona 
fide holders, in 55 JT. 7. 235. See Stalker 
8. McDonald. Decision in 55 JT. 7. ex- 
plained and disting'd (Bona fide holder of 
bills and notes) in First Nat. Bank v. Wood, 
71 JT. 7. 405, 411. Disting'd in Mutual Life 
Ins. Co. 8. Smith, 23 Hun, 535, 540. 

Atlantic Dock Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 1 
Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 24; s. c, 3 Reyes, 444; 
aff g Luke ". City of Brooklyn, 43 Barb. 
54. See a decision in further litigation in 
Same 8. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 53 IT. 7. 
64. 

v. Leavitt, 50 Barb. 135. Aff'd in 54 

IT. 7. 35; s. c, IS Am. R. 556. Decision 
in 54 JT. 7., followed (Effect of mortgage 
assumption clause) in Walesa. Sherwood, 52 
How. Pr. 413; Bowen v. Beck, 94 JT. 7. 
86. 

T. Libby, 45 JT. 7. 499. See People v. 

Albany & Susquehanna R. R. Co. Com- 
mented upon and disting'd (Extra allow- 
ance) in Burke 8. Candee, 63 Barb. 552, 553. 
Applied in Conaughty 8. Saratoga County 
B'k, 92 JT. 7. 401, 405. See to the con- 
trary (Opinions as to materiality of risk) 
cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 494, n. 1. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 53 N. 7. 64. 

See Same v. City of Brooklyn. Disting'd 
(Effect of payment bv stranger) in Hun, 
8. Van Dyck, 26 Hun, "567. 

Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Bird, 2 Bosw. 195. 
Explained and disting'd (Right of shipper 
to take property free of freight) in Allen 
8. Mercantile Mutual Ins. Co., 44 JT. 7. 
437. 

v. Storiw, 1 Edw. 621. Affd in 5 

Paige, 285. Latter decision adopted (Effect 
of abandonment) in Rogers v. Hosack's 
executors, 18 Wend. 319; iEtna Fire Ins. 
Co. 8. Tyler, 16 Id. 385. See Mercantile 
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Calebs, 20 JT. 7. 173. 
Discussed and criticised (Provision in policy 
against loss by thieves) in 3 Kent Com. 
803, n. e. Explained in Spinetti v. Atlas 

. Steamship Co., 80 JT. 7. 71, 79. 

Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. McLoon. See 
(Attachment of property) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, c. 7, tit. 3, art. 1, n. 

Atlantic Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. People. 
See Attorney-General v. Atlantic Mut. Life 
Ins. Co. ; People e. Atlantic Mutual Life 
Ins. Co. 



ATLANTIC- ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 



27 



See Attorney- 



Atlantic Savings Bank v. Hetterick, 5 

Sup'm. Ot. (T. & 0.) 234; s. c, less fully, as 
Atlantic Savings Bank «. Hiler, 3 Him, 209. 
Explained (Lien of attorney on judgment, 
which is . lien on surplus) as resting on 
special circumstances, in Thomas on M. 
381. 

v. Hiler. See Atlantic Savings Bank v. 

Hetterick. 

Atlantic State Bk. v. Savery, 18 Hvn, 36. 
Aff'd -in 82 If. Y. 291. See Cram e. 
Hendricks. Compare (Power of national 
bank to purchase negotiable paper) Lazear 
v. Nat. Union B'k of Baltimore, 52 Aid. 78; 
s. c, 36 Am. R. 355, with note. Relied on 
in First Nat. B'k v. Sherburne, 14 Bradw, 
(III.) 506. To same effect see National Bank 
v. Johnson, 104 U. S. (14 Otto) 271, 277, 
affg 74 If. Y. 329. 

Attorney-General . r.< Atlnntie Mut. Life 
Ins Co., 53 Bow. Pr. 227. See further pro- 
ceedings in Id. 300, the latter being modi- 
fied and aff'd, it seems, in 74 If. Y. 177, as 
People v. Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. Co. See 
further decision in 5rt How Pr. 391. See 
also proceedings in 11 Abb. AC 0. 139 ; 
affd without opinion, in 93 If. Y.632. See 
People v. Atlantic Mutual Life Ins. Co. 

v. Bank of Columbia, 1 Paige, 511. 

Aff'd in 3 Wend. 588. 

t. Bank of Niagara. 

General v. Utica Ins. Co. 

v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 68 If. ¥.' 

343(1877). (Appealable order.) 

v. , 53 How. Pr. 16 (1 877). Dis- 
ting'd in, People v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. 
Co., 60 Id. 87; Attorney-General ». Atlantic 
Mutual Life Ins. Co., 11 Abb. If. C. 139; 
, and followed in Attorney-General v. North 
Am. Life Ins. Co., 56 Id. 165; s. c, 6 Abb. 
If. 0. 293, as to what is the proper mode of 
dissolution of an insurance company. 

v. , 71 If. Y. 325; s. c, 27 Am. R. 

55 (1877). See Harris v. Clark; Lunt v. 
B'k of North America. Compare (Appro- 
priation of fund) Matter of Le BlanCj 14 
Hun, 8; s. c, 4 Abb. If. O. 221. Dissented 
from (Assignment of fund) in German 
Sav'gs Inst'n v. Adee, 1 McCreary, 504. 
See other cases in 21 Moak Eng. 196. 
Disting'd in Coates v. First Nat'l B'k of 
Emporia, 91 If. Y. 20. 

v. , 88 If. Y. 77 (1882); s. c, 14 

Weekly Dig. 73. (Revaluation of policies.) 

v. , 64 How. Pr. 73 (1882). (Re- 
valuation of policies.) 

v. , Id. 93 (1882). 

— — v. , Id. 519 (1882). 

icy. 

V. 

Dig. 
counsel.) 

v. — -, 62 How. Pr. 130. Rev'd in 27 

Hun, 195; s. c, 63 How. Pr. 129; 14 
Weekly Dig. 450. Appeal therefrom dis- 
missed- in 90 If. Y. 45; s. c, 15 Weekly 
Dig. 247 (1882). (Allowance to counsel ior 
creditors. 



(Reference.) 
(Lapse of pol- 

88 K Y. 571 ; s. c, 14 Weekly 
163 (1882). (Compensation of special 

62 



T. , 28 Hun, 360; s. c, 15 Weekly 

Dig. (1882) 568. (Receiver.) 

V. , 16 Weekly Dig. 164 (1883). 

(Surrender of policies.) 

v . , 91 If. Y. 647 (1883). Revalua- 
tion of policies). 

v. , 27 Hun, 524 ; s. c, 15 Weekly 

Dig. 239. Appeal dismissed in 93 If. Y. 
45' (1883). (Fees of referee.) 

— - v. , Id. 70 (1883). (Forfeiture of 

policy.) 

v. , Id. 630 (1883). 

T. , 4 Civ. Pro. R. 214 ; s. c, 66 

How. Pr. 51 (1833). (Depositions.) 

v. , 94 If. Y. 199 (1888). Purchase 

at receivers sale.) 

v. , 18 Weekly Dig. 260 (1883). 

Referee's fees. 

v. , 31 Hun, 633 ,• s. c, 18 Weekly 

Dig. 493 (1884). (Compensation of attorney 
for policy-holders.) 

v. , 327^.223(1884). (Commissions 

of receiver.) 

v. Guardian Mnt. Life Ins. Co., 77 

If. Y. 272. Applied (Receivers) in Eddy 
v. Co-operative Dress Assoc'n, 3 Civ. Pro, 
S. (Browne) 434. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Duer, 119. 

See Davis v. Mayor, &c, of N. Y., 14 If. Y. 
506. 

v. North Amer. Life Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 

18. Rav'd in 77 N.Y. 297 ; s. c, GAbb.If. 
C. 293, with note. See previous proceeding 
in 56 How. Pr. 160 ; s. c, 6 Abb. If. C. 203, 
and further proceedings in 58 How. Pr. 
197; aff'd in 18 Him, 470; which was affd 
in 80 If. Y. 152. Other proceedings in 82 
If. Y. 172, also in 26 Hun, 294, modified in 
, 89 If. Y. 94 ; also in 91 If. Y. 57 ; also in 
92 If. Y. 654; also in 93 If. Y. 387. De- 
cision in 6 Abb. If. C. disting'd (Action 
by attorney-general) in People ■». Globe 
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 60 How. Pr. 82, 87. 
Followed (Proceeds of securities deposited 
with superintendent of insurance depart- 
ment — when assets in hands of receiver) in 
decision in 89 If. Y. 94, which was itself 
disting'd as to compensation of receivers, 
in Matter of Security Life Ins. Co., 31 Hun, 
36. Decision in 82 If. 'Y. .172, followed 
(Constitutionality of L. 1869, c. 902, § 7) 
in Att'y-Gen'l v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 
60 How. Pr. 92, 94. Decision in 82 If. 
Y. followed (Forfeiture) with other cases 
in Ewald v. Northw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 
Supm. Ct. Wise., May, 1884, 19 Northw. 
Pep. 513. Followed in Hay v. Star Fire 
Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 497; 77 If. Y. 235. Dis- 
ting'd in Clausen v. Russell, 18 Weekly Dig. 
10. 

t. Purmort, 5 Paige, 620. Affd as 

McCrea v. Purmort, in 16 Wend. 460. 

v. Reformed Dutch Church, 33 Barb. 

303. Aff'd in 36 K Y. 452. See state- 
ments and points bound up in Court of App. 
Cases for March, 1867, in Law Inst. Libr., 
N. Y. City. 

t. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 371. See 



28 



ATTOKNEY-GENEKAL— AUSTIN. 



Davis ■». Mayor of N. Y. ; Orphan Asylum 
Society «. McCartee. Reaffd (Jurisdiction 
of equity over corporations) in Verplanck v. 
Mercantile Ins. Co., 1 Edw. 88; People v. 
Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 378; Attorney 
General v. Bank of Niagara, Hoph. 354; 
Robertson «. Bullions, 11 N~. Y. 252. Ex- 
plained in Bangs v. Duckinfield, 18 Id. 595 ; 
Robertson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 2o2. Examined 
■with other cases, in Thompson liability of 
Officers, &e. of Corporations, 274. Relied 
on in Taylor v. Miami Exporting Co., 5 
Ohio, 162; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 785. Reviewed 
at length, with Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. 
Co., 1 Edw. 84 ; 2 Paige, 438 ; and other 
cases, in Hodges v. New England Screw Co., 
1 B. I. 312; s.'c, 53 Am. Dec. 024 (with 
elaborate note). Questioned, with Attorney- 
Gen'l i>. Bank of Niagara, Hoph. 354, in 
State it. Mobile, 5 Port. {Ala.) 279; s. c, 
30 Am. Dec. 564, 570, with note, in so far 
as they deny the jurisdiction of courts of 
equity in affording preventive relief in cases 
of public nuisances. Disting'd (Enjoining 
public nuisance) in Corning v. Lowerre, 
6 Johns. Ch. 440. Disting'd (Power of 
attorney-general to sue for the people) in 
People v. Lowber, 7 Abb. Pi: 175. Cri.icised 
and disting'd in People?). Tweed,13 Abb. 
Pr. N. 8. 50. But compare Superv s of N. 
Y. v. Tweed, Id. 152, and note; People v. 
Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1. Approved as con- 
taining a very able and elaborate review of 
the authorities in People v. Miner, 2 Lans. 
396, 407. Approved (Jurisdiction of equity 
over offense against public statute) in Smith 
v. Lockwood, 13 Barb. 219. Applied in De 
Baun v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 16 Barb. 394. 
Collated (Quo warranto) with other cases, in 
Meld on Ultra Vires, 340. Relied on in 
Hagner v. Heyberger, *7 Watts & S. {Pa.) 
104; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 220. Quoted and 
explained (Dissolution of corporations) in 
Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 658. Reaff'd 
(Remedy for non-user or mis-user of charter 
powers) in Slee v. Bloom, 5 Johns. Oh. 381. 
Followed and approved in Attorney-General 
e. Tudor Ice Co , 104 Mass. 239 ; , si c, 6 
Am. E. 227. Followed in People v. Metro- 
politan B'k, 7 Row. Pi: 146. Quoted and 
explained (Injunction) in 1 High ,eii lnj. 
2ed. § 20, n. 4; Id. § 907, n. 3. 

Atwater v. Atwater, 53 Barb. 621; s. c, 3! 
How. Pr. 431. See Fry v. Fry. Approved 
and followed (Power to grant alimony) in 
Davis v. Davis, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 455; 
6. c, 1 Hun, 444. Followed in Ramsden v. 
Ramsden, 91 N. Y. 281, as to no action 
being maintainable by a wife for mainte- 
nance and support merely. 

v. Diraaci, 24 Hun, 340. Abridg't in 

12 Weekly Dig. 405. Afi'd, it seems, in 89 
IT. Y. 638. 

v. Fowler, 1 Edw. 417. Disting'd 

(Equitable relief in cases of partnership 
accounts) in Harris v. Hillegas, 54 Cal. 
469. 

Atwell T. Brown, 1 Hun, 439; mem. of s. c, 



3 Sup'm. Gt. {T. & 0.) 779. Aft'd, it seems, 
59 N. Y. 655, but without opinion. 

Atwood v Lynch, 37 Super. Ct. iJ. & 5)5. 
Disting'd (Illegal levy) in Parker v. Connor, 
44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 416, 422. 

Aubery v. Fiske, 36 K Y. 47. Cited (Agent 
not to dispute title of principal) in Whart. 
Com. on Ag. \ 242, n. 

Auburn & Cato Plank-road Co. v Douglass, 
12 Barb. 553. Rev'd in 9 N. Y. 444. Ex- 
plained and applied (Extent of corporate 
franchises) in Prime v. Twenty-third S'. R. 
R. Co., 1 Abb. N. C. 63, 66. Di tingd in 
Aiken v. Western R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 370, 
382. 

Auburn City Bank v. Leonard. 20 How. Pr. 
193. Disting'd iStay of proceedings) in 
Liftchild v. Smith, 7 Eobt. 306. Further 
decision on the merits in 40 Barb. 119. 
Decision in 40 Ba<b. said in Babbett «. 
Young, 51 N. Y. 238, to have been aff'd by 
the Court of Appeals. 

Auchinuty, Matter of. 11 Hun, 76. Subse- 
quent proceedings in 18 Hun, 324, appeal 
in which was dismissed in 7!) N. Y. 622. 
Decision in 11 Hun, compared (Defective 
assessment) with Matter of Casey, 5 Id. 
463, in Matter of N. Y. Prot. Epis. Pub. 
School, 75 N. Y. 326. 

T. Ham, 1 Den. 4^5. See (Trespassing 

animals) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3109, n. 

. Followed in Strang v. Newlin, 38 How. Pr. 
364. 

Andubon v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 
216. See First Baptist Church v. Brooklyn 
Fire Ins. Co. Commented on (Dismissal of 
complaint) in People v. Smith, 51 Barb. 
363. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1209, n. 
Applied (Parol contract of insurance) in 
Pratt v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 64 Barb. 
592. Followed in Fish v. Cottenet, 44 iV. 
Y. 543. 

Augustine v. Britt, 15 Hun, 395. Affd in 
80 N. Y. 647. 

Austin, Matter of, 44 Barb. 434. Rev'd as 
Austin v. Rawdon, 42 N. Y. 155. 

v. Bell, 20 Johns. 442. See De Caters 

■v. De Chaumont; Grover v. Wakeman; Hys- 
lok v. Clarke ; McDermutt v. Strong. Quoted 
and discussed (Fraudulent assignment) in 
Burr ill on Assign. § 192, 4 ed. ; Id. § 209. 
Followed, with Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 
566; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 477, with note, in 
Sommerville ■». Horton. 4 Yerg. {Tenn.) 541; 
s. c, 26 Am. Dec. 242, with note. 

t v. Baniels, 4 Den. 300. Disting'd (Bank 

cashier's liability for dealing in outside mat- 
ters at loss to the bank) in Van Dyck v. 
McQuade, 86 N. Y. 38, 45. 

v. Dye, 46 N. Y. 500. Followed (Condi- 
tional sale) in Powell v. Preston, 1 Hun, 
513, 515. Disting'd in Comer v. Cunning- 
ham, 77 K Y. 391, 398; Hintermister v. 
Lane, 27 Hun, 497. 

v. Hall, 13 Johns. 286; s. c, 7 Am. Dee. 

376, with note. Followed (Joinder of ten- 
ants in common as plaintiffs) with Decker «. 
Livingston, 15 Johns. 479 ; in May v. Slade, 



AUSTIN— AYMAR. 



29 



24 Tex. 205, ?08. D'sapproved with Decker 
t. Living ton, 15 Jobns. 479; Hills. Gibbs, 5 
Hill, 56; in Smith fl.Wiley, 22^ita. 396; s. c, 
58 -Am. .Dec. l62. Said in Gock ». Koncda, 
29 £arfc 120, no to be applicable to tenants 
in common of personalty. 

t. Hudson River R R. Co., 25 IT. Y 334. 

Explained (Measure of damages to build- 
ings) in Agile v. Lowenbein, 6 Daly, 291. 
Explained (Torts on lands against reversion- 
ers) in Moak's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. cd. 
513. 

v Monroe, 4 Lans. 67. Affd in 47 JV. 

Y. 360. Decision in 47 N. Y. referred to 
(Liability of executors and administrators) 
in 15 Am. L. Rev. 449, 456 (citing cases), 
as staging a well-settled doctrine, and not 
inconsistent with Cater v. Everleigh, 4 
Desnui. (S. C.) 19. Discussed in 1 Addison, 
on Contracts, 130, n. 1, Abb. ed. Applied 
wi+hFerrin s.Myrick, 41 A 7 ". Y. 315 ; Reynolds 
v. Reynolds, 3 Wend. 244; Demott v. Field, 
7 Cow. 58; Christopher v. Stockholm, 5 
Wend 36; Merittu. Seaman, 6 AT. Y. 168, 
in Wetmore v. Porter, 92 N. Y. 76. Followed 
in Carv v. Gregory, 38 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 
127, 130; Lunt v. Lunt (No. 2), 8 Ah I. 
A 7 ". C. 83, 90 ; Hill v. Richardson, 22 Hun, 
449. Applied in l^ew ■». Nicoll, 12 Hun, 
433, to case of trustees. Cited as authority 
in Lucht v. Behrens, 28 Ohio St. 231 ; s. c, 
22 Am.,R. 378, 383. 

v. Rawdon, 44 N. Y. 63. Rev'g Matter 

of Austin, 44 Barb. 434. Disting'd (Actions 
on contract and in tort) in Smith v. Hall, 67 
N. Y. 48, 51 ; Smith v. Frost, 70 A 7 ! Y. 65, 
7 ! . Followed in Harden v. Corbett, 6 Hun, 
523 ; Vilraars. Schall, 61 A7". Y. 568 ; Church 
of the Redeemer v. Crawford, 36 Super. Ot. 
J. & S.) 319. Disting'd in Wood v. Hope, 
2 Abb. N. O. 189. 

v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. 39. See Bank of 

Lansingburghs. Crary ; Greens. Armstrong; 
Huid v. West: Stewart v. Doughty; Waring 
t. Warren. Reporter's note criticised, in 
Whittaker v. Brown, 8 Wend. 490. Said 
(Inadmissibility of parol reservation to con- 
tradict deed) in Wintermute v. Light, 46 
Barb. 278, never to have been questioned 
by any court in this State. Criticised (Val- 
idity of verbal sales of unsevered crops) 
in Tripp v. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 254 ; s. c, 4 
Am. R. 389. 

v. Searing, 16 AT. Y. 112. See Tibbets 

«. Blood. Explained (Actions by or against 
unincorporated associations) in Poultney v. 
Bachman, 10.445. JV. 0. 252, 255; Briden- 
becker v. Hoard, 32 Sow. Pr. 289 ; Dewitt 
v. Chandler, 11 Abb. Pr. 459, 471. See also 
Ebbinghausen v. Worth Club, 4 ^155. N. C. 
300. Disting'd (Decisions of ecclesiastical 
tribunals) in Connitt v. Reformed Prot. 
Dutch Church, 54 A 7 ". Y. 551, 564. 

- — v. Tompkins, 3 Sandf. 22. Disting'd 
(Action on judgment) in Jklalloy o. Vander- 
bilt, AAbb.N. O. 127, 132. 

Averill v. Loitcks, 6 Barb. 1 9. See Meech v. 
Allen. Disting'd and criticised (Parol evi- 



dence to any consideration) in Anthony v. 
Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 212. Decision in 6 
Barb. 470, discussed (Assignmont for benefit 
of creditors — schedules) in .Burrill on 
Assign. § 153, 4 ed. ; Id. § 179. Reviewed 
and relied on (Rights of suretyship created, 
when a partner mortgages his private prop- 
erty for a firm 'debt) in National Bank v. 
Cushing, 53 Vt. 321.' 

v. Patterson, 10 How. Pr. 85; s. c, 10 

A 7 . Y. 500. Disapproved (Costs) in Weigan 
v. Held, 3 Abb. Pr. 462. " Followed (Entry 
by plaintiff of order of discontinuance) in 
Schenck v. Fancher, 14 How. Pr. 95. 

v. Williams, 1 Ben. 501. Subsequent 

decision in 4 Den. 295. See Coventry 
v. Barton; Newberry v. Lee. See to the 
contrary (Proof of defendant's sanction of 
wrongful levy) Newberry v. Lee, 3 Hill, 
523. Compare Copley v. Rose, 2 N. Y. 115. 
See Abb. Tr. Et. 631. Decision in 4 Den. 
disting'd (Liability of client for attorney's 
acts) in Oestrich v. Gilbert, 9 Hun, 242. 
Disting'd with Welsh v. Cothran, 63 A 7 ". Y 
181, in Guilleaume v. Rowe, 48 Super. Ot 
(J. & S.) 169; s. c, 63 How. Pr. 175. 

Avery v. Foley, 4 Hun, 415. Followed (Ex- 
ceptions to finding of referee) in Wilson v. 
Knapp, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 25, 31. 

v. Slack, 17 Wend. 85. Subsequent de- 
cision in 19 Wend. 50. Cited and applied 
(Action for penalty — what is sufficient refer- 
ence in summons to statute) in Schoonmaker 
v. Brooks, 24 Hun, 553, 555. With decis- 
ion in 19 Wend, see (Execution against 
officer) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1931, n. 

v. Smith, 9 How. Pr. 349. See Boyd v. 

Bigelow. See to the contrary (Right of 
prevailing party to costs, in case of refer- 
ence of claim against estate of decedent) 
Munson i>. Howell, 12^446. Pr. 77; s. c, 20 
How. Pr. 59; Linn v. Clow, 14 Id. 508. 

v. Willson, 81 A 7 ! Y. 341. Explained (Im- 
plied contracts of sale) in 1 Benj. on Sales, 
| 48, n. 12 (Corbin's 4 Am., Ed.). Com- 
mented upon (Delivery of less than is re- 
quired — acceptance) in 2 Id. § 1032, n. 19 
(Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.). Disting'd with Perlee 
v. Beebe, 13 Hun, 89; Matthews «. Hobby, 
48 Barb. 167, in Hill v. Heller, 27 hun, 
416. 

v. Woodbeck, 62 Barb. 557; s.-c, with 

brief opinions, by Millek, P. J., and Pab- 
kek, J., in 5 lans. 498. 

Ayer v. Kobbe, 3fi Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 158; 
s. c, 45 How. Pr. 373. Aff'd in 59 AT. Y. 
454. 

Ayers v. Lawrence, 63 Barb. 454. Followed 
in a further decision in 1 Sup"m. Ct. { T. & 
C.) Add. 5; but the latter rev'd in 59 A 7 ". Y. 
192. Reversal solely because of the act of 
1872. Decision in 59 N. Y. followed (Right 
of tax-payer to maintain proceedings to 
prevent levying or paying over of tax) in 
Newton v. Keech, 9 Hun, 3")8, :!62. Lim- 
ited in Clark v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 IT. 
Y. 186. 

Aj'inar v. Astor, 6 Cow. 260. Overruled 



30 



AYMAR-BABCOCK. 



(Liability of masters of vessels as carriers) 
in Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327 ; Sewall v. 
Allen, 6 Id. 335; McArthur v. Sears, 21 
Id. 190; and see Merritt v. Earle, 3L Barb. 
38, 43. Disapproved in Crosby c. Fitch, 12 
Conn. 410; s. c, 31 Am. Dec. 745, .47, with 
note; Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. {Ala.) 
133; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 716, 738, with note, 
as not being sound law, and as inconsistent 
with the later decision of Allen ». Sewall, 2 
Wend. 327; and was so considered in 2 Kent 
Com. 473, and Story on Bailm. 323. De- 
nied in Hale v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 15 
Conn. '539 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 398, with 
note, as ' unsound and anomalous, and 
repugnant to the decisions of its own and 
other States. Commented upon (Extent of 
liability for goods carried) in Angellon Carr. 
§ 80, 5 ed., and in Id.'% 168, as to distinc- 
tion between "perils of navigation" and 
"act c'f God" in bills of lading. Approved 
(Evidence of mercantile usage to explain 
bill of lading) in Lawson on Usages and 
Customs, 436. 

'v. Beers, 7 Cow. 705; s. c, 17 Am. Dec. 

538, with note, wherein it is shown to have 
been generally followed and approved in N. 
Y. as to what is a reasonable time being a 
question of law ; see many other citations in 
note. 

T. Bill, 5 Johns. Ch. 570. See Jackson 

*. Willard. Followed (Effect of mortgage 
executed by mortgagee) in Power v. Lester, 
23 N. Y. 527, 533, 535, 536. 

v. Sheldon, 12 Wend. 489; s. c, 27 Am. 

Dec. 137; s. c, 12 N. Y. Com. L. Law, Ed. 
187, with brief note: Included (Law- govern- 
ing bill drawn in one country and indorsed 
or payable in another) in Bigelow on Bills 
and 'Motes, 333, with note. See in 27 Am. 
Dee. 142, n., citations from various jurisdic- 
tions. Included, with notes, in 2 Ames Cases 
on B.&N. 206; Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. 
of Ex. 709. Explained in 1 Pars, on Contr. 
277, n.f. Followed in Faulkner v. Hart, 82 
HT. Y. 418, as holding what is now a well 
established principle, that in this State we 
cannot bruak in upon the settled principles 
of our commercial law, to accommodate 
them to tho:se of any other jurisdiction. 

Ayrault r. Chamberlin, 26 Barb. 83. See 
Williams v. Fitzhugh. Collated, with other 
cases, in 5;'i Am. Dec. 147, n., on the subject 
of dormant partners. 

■ — - v. Chamberlain, 33 Barb. 229. Compare 
previous decision, reported as Williams v. 
Ayrault, in 31 Bark 3'J4, and later decision 
as Williams v. Fitzhugh, in 44 Id. 3:i, 
which was modified and affd on appeal, in 
37 N. Y. 444. 

. v. Pacific Bank, 6 Robt. 337. Aff'd in 

47 N. Y. 570. Previous decision in 1 Abb. 
Pr.N:S. 381. Decision in 47 N. Y. followed 
(Exceptions too g-nerah in Daly «. Byrn", 
43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 261, 274. Distingd 
in Bctz «. Conner, 7 Daly-, 550 See to the 
contrary (Admissibility of usage) Warren 
v. Suffolk Bank, 10 Cush. 5S2. Followed as 



settled law (Liability of collecting bank) in 
Indig v. National C ty Ban.<, i« San, 201. 
Disapproved in Guelich n. Nat. State Bank 
of Burlington, 56 Iowa, 434. Cited as 
establishing the doctrine— in l xchange Nat. 
B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 U. S. 276, 282. 
Followed in Davcy v. Jones, 13 Vr. (N. J.) 
31. 

v. Sackett, 17 Mow. Pr. 401; s. c, 9 

Abb. Pi: 154, n. Affd in 1 f How. Pr. 507. 
See Kissam v. Hamilton. 

Ayres v. Covill, 18 Barb. 260. See Niven v. 
Munn. Compare (Proof of mitigating cir- 
cumstances, in slander or libel) Bushfl. Pros- 
per, 11 N. Y. 347. Explained (Words used 

" against one in, his business or professional 
capacity) in Moak'S Uhderhill's Torts; 1 
Am. Ed. 143. 

- — v. Lawrence. See Ayers v. Lawrence. 

t. Methodist Episcopal Church, 3 

Sandf. 351. See Yates «. Yates. Approved 
(Charitable trusts) in Beekman v. People, 
27 Barb. 260, 273 ; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 
N. Y. 584. Dissented from, in part, in 
Boyce v. City of St. Louis, 29 Id. 650 ; seu 
Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 551. Quoted 
in 1 Jarman on Wills, Randolph & Talcott Ed. 
468. Collated, with other cases, in Gerard 
Titles to Real Est. 2 >ed. 298. Commented 
upon in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 45, n. 3; 
2 Id. § 748, n. 391. 

v. O'Farrell, 10 Bosw. 144. Further de- 
cision in 4 Robt. 668. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 
166. to have been affd by the Court of Ap- 
peals, in May, 1871, but appears in Carpenter 
t. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 52, to 
be regarded as overruled (Effect of reply 
to counter-claim as waiver) by 67 N. Y. 51, 

v. Western R. R. Co., 48 Barb. 132; s. 

c, 32 How. Pr. 351. Appeal in subsequent 
proceedings reported in 45 N. Y. 260. 
Direction that reversal be without costs 
erroneous, and corrected in 49 N. Y. 660. 
Decision in 48 Barb, relied on (Removal of 
cause to Federal court — entry of appearance) 
in Chat. Nat. Bank of N. Y. t. Merchants' 
Nut. Bank of West Virginia, 4 Sup'm. Ct. 
. (?'. & C.) 196. 200. Decision in 4o N. Y. 
explained (Removal to Federal court) in 
Leutze-o. ButtcrfleM, 7 Daly, 24, 28; s. a, 
1 Abb. N. C. 307. Decision in 49 K Y. 
applied in Commissioners of Pilots v. ijpof- 
ford, 3 Hun, 52, 04. 

B. 

B. T. B., 11 JT. Y. Ley. OU 350. See 
(Matrimonial aeti..n — Counter-claim) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1770, n. 

Babbett v. Toung, 51 Barb. 466. Affd in 51 
N. Y. 238. 

Babcock v. Beman, 1 E. D. Smith, 593. 
Affd in 11 N. Y. 200. See Mott ». Hicks; 
Peck d. Mallams. Reported in Thomps. 
Liab. of Off. & A. 36, wilh notes, on p. 77, 
&c. Decision in 11 N. Y. followed (Bill or 
not; signed or indorsed by officer or agent) 
with Watcrvli.t Bank u. White, 1 Den. 603 



BABGOCK— BACON. 



31 



Wright v. Boyd, 3 Barb. 523, in Vater v. 
Lewis, 36 lnd. 288; 8. c, 10 Am. R. 29, 33. 
Followed in Hager v. Rice, 4 Col. 90 ; s. c, 
34 Am. R. 68, 70. Included in 2 Ames 
Cases on B. & N. 224. 

v. lion no II, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 568. 

Aff'd in 80 N. Y. 244. Decision in 80 JV. Y. 
with Ruse v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 
23 K Y. 523; 24 Id. 653; Shotwell v. 
Jefferson Ins. Co., 5 Botw. 247; Murdock v. 
Chenango Ins. Co., 2 N~. Y. 210; Fowler v. 
N. Y. Ins. Co., 26 Id. 422; Freeman ». 
Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 14 XM. iV. 398; 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. «. Wager, 27 ifcwtf. 
359; disting'd (Necessity of insurable inter- 
est) in Ferguson v. Mass. Mut. Ins. Co., 32 
Hun, 306. Commented upon (Sale— stop- 
page in transitu) in 2 Ben), on Sales, § 1298, 
n. 31 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted in Id. 
§ 1299, n. 81. Collated with other cases in 
27 Moak Eng. 346, n. 

V. Booth, 2 Hill, 185, 186 ; s. c, 38 Am. 

Dee. 578. See Osborne o. Moss. Explained 
(Executor of his own wrong) in Willard on 
Executors, 140. Thought in 38 Am. Dee. 
583, n., to have settled in N. Y. right of 
personal representative . to attack sales in 
fraud of creditor:;; see other citations in 
note. 

v. City of Bnffalo, 1 Sheldon, 317. Aff'd 

in 56 N. Y. 268. Latter decision explained 
(Torts — municipality abating nuisances) in 
MoaUs Underbill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 509. 
Approved in Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 
83 K Y. 190. 

v. Eckler, 24 JT. Y. 623. Citod (Volun- 
tary conveyances as against creditors) as the 
correct rule, and compared with other 
authorities pro and con. in 2 Kent Com. 441, 
n. 1 (Holmes' Ed.). Relied on in Childs v. 
Connor, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 471. Fol- 
lowed in Dygert v. Remerschnider, 32 If. Y. 
629, 648 ; McCartney v. Welch, 44 Barb. 
277; Carr v. Breese, 81 N. Y. 591. Applied 
in Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. 456. 
Approved and applied (Question of fraud- 
ulent intent as one of fact) in Kavanagh v. 
Beckwith, 44 Barb. 194. Followed (Legality 
of preference given by husband to wife) in 
Savage «. O'Neil, 44 N. Y. 302 ; Jaycox v. 
Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 398. 

v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 43 

How. I'r. 317; s. c, 49 N. Y. 491. 
Statement in latter case that it is reported 
below in former, is incorrect. See Van 
Santvoord v. St John. Followed (Effect of 
special contract to limit liability of carrier) 
iu Edsall v. Camden and Amboy R. R. 
& Transp. Co., 50 N. Y. 661. 

v. Lamb. 1 Cow. 238. Applied (Execu- 
tion of public trust) in First Nat. Bk. of 
North Bennington v. Town of Mt. Tabor, 52 
Vt. 87; s. c, 30 Am. li. 734, 741. Followed 
(Imputing negligence to one that allows 
animals to stray on highway) with Griffin v. 
Martin, 7 Barb. 297, in Trow e. Vermont 
Central R. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487; s. c, 58 Am. 
Dec. 191, with note. 



t. Libbey, 53 How. Pr. 255. Aff'd in 

17 Hun, 131 ; and that aff'd in 82 N. Y. 144. 

v. Montgomery County Mat Ins. Co., 

6 Barb. 637. Aff'd in 4 N. Y. 326. Relied 
on (Extent of losses covered by policy) with 
City Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 21 Wend. 367, in 
White v. Republic Fire Ins. Co., 57 Me. 91 ; 
s. a, 2 Am. R. 22. Decision in 4 K Y. 
referred to (Insurance and loss by lightning) 
as one of the best considered cases, by 
Editor of Ins. L. J.'va. 11 Ins. L. J. 371. 
Both decisions criticised at length and ex- 
plained in Spensley c. Lancashire Ins. Co., 
54 Wis. 440. 

v. Utter, 1 Keyes, 397. Not the decision 

of'the court. See full report in 1 Abb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 27; s. c, less fully, in 1 Keyes, 
115. Compared (Easement by license) with 
other cases in Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 
N. Y. 31, 40, 42. 

Baccio v. People, 41 K Y. 265. (See also 
(Declarations of prosecutrix in rape) 20 
Moak Eng. 395, citing other cases. 

Bacharach t. Lagrave, 1 Hun. 689; s. c, 4 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215 ; 47 How. Pr. 385. 
Rev'd in Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 .V. Y. 110; 
s. c, 17 Am. R. 317, afl'g 15 Abb. Pr. 272; 
s. c, 47 How. Pr. 71. 

Baohe v. Doscher, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
150. Aff'd in 67 K Y. 429, which, with 
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 3 Bun, 
630, was distinsf'd (Evidence of deficiency 
judgment in foreclosure) in Springsteene v. 
Gillett, 30 Hun, 260. 

v. Lawrence, 17 How. Pr. 554. Collated 

(Attachment — domicil), with other cases, in 
Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 359. 

v. Pnrcell, 51 How. Pr. 270. Aff'd in 

> 6 Hun, 518. 

Backns v. Shipherd. Bee Coddington v. 
Davis. 

Bacon v. Bnrnham, 37 N. Y. 614. See Moore 
v. Cross. Followed (Presumption arising 
from indorsement of note payable to another 
or order) in Woodruff i>. Leonard, 1 Hun, 
632; Hull v. Marvin, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
421. Followed (Liability of indorser of 
note before delivery) iu Schvvarzansky i>. 
Averill, 7 Daly, 256; Coul'.er v. Richmond, 
59 N. Y. 481 ; Phelps v. Vischer, 50 N. 
Y. 73. 

V. Frisbie, 15 Hun, 26. Rev'd iu part 

in 80 K Y. 394; s. c, 36 Am. R. 627, with 
note. See Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. ; 
Whiting v. Barney. See (Communications 
between, attorney and client) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 835, n. Decision in 80 XT. Y. 
cited in Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Red/. 181, 190. 

v. Oilman, 4 Laris. 456; s. c, 60 Barb. 

640. Aff'd in 57 N. Y. 656. 

v. Reading. 1 Duer, 622. Followed in 

Hibbard v. Burwell, 11 How. Pr. 572, as to 
an appeal from an order not operating as a 
stay of proceedings without an undertaking; 
but see to the contrary Emerson v. Burney, 
6 Id. 32 ; Trustees of Penn Yan v. Forbes, 8 
Id. 285; Stewart v. Saratoga & Whitehall 
R. R. Co., 12 Id. 435. Explained (Suspen- 



32 



BACON— BAILEY. 



sion of entry of judgment) in AlfaTO v. 
Davidson, 39 Super. Gt. (/. & S.) 408. 

« v. Vau Schoonhoven, 19 Hun, 158. 

Aff d in 87 A 7 ". Y. 446. Compare (Priority 
of mortgages) 22 Alb. L. J. 199, 238, 239, 
and cases cited. 

Badean t. Stead, 14 Barb. 328. See Under- 
wood v. Stuyvesant. Applied (Evidence of 
dedication to public use) in Gould v. Glass, 
19 Barb. 194. Explained (Sale of land 
bounded upon street) in Matter of Sixty- 
seventh Street, 60 How. Pr. 275. Fol- 
lowed in Cox v. James, 59 Barb. 144; Fonda 
v. Borst, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 157; Grinnell 
*>. Kirtland, 6 Daly, 356. 

• v. Rogers, 2 Paige, 209. Followed (Ob- 
ject of action of interpleader) in N. Y. & 
Harlem R. R. Co. v. Haws, 35 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 372. 

Badger v. Benedict, 4 Abb. Pr. 176. Affd in 

1 Eilt. 414. 

Badgly v. Bruce, 4 Paige, 98. Followed 
(Remedy for dower) under the Code, in Van 
Name v. Van Name, 23 How. Pr. 247, 249. 

v. Decker, 44 Barb. 577. See Ingersoll 

v. Jones. Approved (Real gravamen of 
action of seduction) in Holliday v. Parker, 
23 Hun, 72. Disting'd (Effect of statute on 
married woman's liability, &c.) in Tait v. 
Culbertson, 57 Barb. 9. 

v. Halsey, 4 Paige, 98. Disting'd 

(Remedy, when right to dower is disputed), 
in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 JST. Y. 427, 433. 

Baer v. Leppert, 5 Hun, 453. See further 
proceedings in 12 Hun, 516. 

Bagg v. Jefferson Com. Pleas, 10 Wend. 
615. Folldwed (Set-off against judgment) 
with other cases in Ferguson v. Bassett, 
4 How. Pr. 168, 172. 

Bnggerly v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 
3 Weekly Big. 113. Affd in 72 JV. Y. 601. 
Latter decision followed (Waiver of proof of 

~ loss) in Goodwin v. Massachusetts Mut. Life 
Ins. Co., 73 A 7 ". Y. 480, 495. 

Baggott v. Boulger. 2 Duer, 160. Disting'd 
(In whose name action on bond of foreign 
executor or administrator to be brought) in 
People ex rel. Becar s. Struller, 16 Hun, 234. 
Explained in Hood v. Hood, 85 K Y. 561, 
573. Disting'd (Conclusiveness of judg- 
ment on one not party or privy) in Thom- 
son v. MacGregor, 81 A 7 ". Y. 597. See 
to the contrary (Improper joinder of parties 
as ground of demurrer) Gregory v. Oak- 
smith, 12 How. Pr. 134. 

Bagley v. Blackman. 2 Lans. 41. Followed 
(Publication of will) in Neugent v. Neugent, 

2 Bed/. 369, 373. 

v. Clarke, 7 Bosw. 94. Disting'd (Lia- 
bilities of sureties) in Western N. Y. Life 
Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 66 A 7 ". Y. 332. 

v. Peddie, 5 Sand/. 192. Rev'd in 16 

K Y. 469 ; s. c, 1 Am. Dec. 335. See Den- 
nis v. Cummins. Question (Liquidated 
damages and penalties) said in 2 Sedgw. 
Meas. o/Dam. 7 ed. 245, n., to have been 
very thoroughly discussed in both courts. 
Principles of case (5 Sand/. 192) said in 1 



Am.' Dee. 335, n., to have commanded 
general approval, although overruled in 16 
N. Y. Discussed in 3 Pars, on Contr. 161, 
n. h. Quoted in 2 Story on Contr. 5 
ed. §1472, n. 4. Decision in 16 AT. Y. 
followed in Wooster v. Kisch, 26 Hun, 61. 
Included with note in Sedgw. Cases on 
Dama. 444. Both cases with Dakin v. Wil- 
liams, 17 Wend. 447; 22 Id. 201; Smith v. 
Smith, 4 Wend. 468 ; Slosson v. Beadle, 7 
Johns. 72; Spencer v. Tilden, 5 Cow. 150; 
Hasbrook v. Tappan, 15 Johns. 200; Knapp 
n. Mattby, 13 Wend. 587; Pearson v. Wil- 
liams, 26 Id. 630; Esmond ,v. Benschoten, 
12 Barb. 36G; Farnham v. Ross, 2 Hall, 167; 
Colwell v. Lawrence, 38 Id. 71; Cotheal v. 
Talmage, 9 Id. 551 ; Noyes«. Phillips, 60 Id. . 
408; Leggett v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 
53 Id. 394; Greer ». Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. (A r . 
S.) 427 ; O'Donnell v. Rosenberg, 14 Id. 59 ; 
Kemp v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 69 N. Y. 
45, and other cases collated in 30 Am. B. 
28, n. 

v. Smith. 10 A 7 ". Y. 489. Disting'd 

(Damages, when partnership is wrongfully 
compelled to dissolve) in Neudecker v. 
Kohlberg, 81 JST. Y. 296, 304. Explained in 
Van Ness v. Fisher, 5 Lans. 236, as not con- 
flicting with rule in Griffin v. Colver, 16 A 7 ". 
Y. 489, as to speculative and contingent; 
profits. Disting'd (Damages for loss of 
profits) in Mitchell v. Cornell, 44 Super, Ct. 
(J. & S.) 401, 405. 

Balirenburgli v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. 
Co., 56 A 7 ". Y. 652. See other cases collected 
(Contributory negligence of parent, &c.) in 
Casey v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 6 
Abb. A 7 ". G. 104, 113, n. 

Bailey v. Adams, 14 Wend. 201. Disting'd 
(Discharge of mechanic's lien) in Montandon 
v. Deas, 14 Ala. 33 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 84, 
90, with note. 

v. Bancker, 3 Bill, 183. See Corning s. 

v. McCullough. Cited (Suit by partner on 
security given by firm) in Story on Partn. 
(7 ed.) § 237. Disting'd (Actions between 
stockholders) in Sanborn v. LefTerts, 16 
Abb. Pr. JST. S. 55. Explained in Woodruff 
& Beach Iron Works v. Chittenden, 4 Bosw. 
417. Followed in Beers v. Waterbury, 8 
Bosw. 413. Explained in Aspinwall v. 
Torrance, 1 Lans. 384. Followed in Wait 
v. Ferguson, 14 Abb. Pr. 385. AppliecJ to 
case of partners in Englis v. Furniss, 4 E. D. 
Smith, 599. Regarded as settled law in Dem- 
ing ii. Puleston, 33 Super. Gt. {J. &8.) 235. 
Applied to suits between trustees in Andrews 
v. Murray, 33 Barb. 355. Reviewed (Judg- 
ment against corporation, as evidence against 
stockholders), with other cases, in Conklin 
v. Furman, 57 Barb. 486; Belmont v. Cole- 
man, 1 Bosw. 200. Reviewed (Nature of 
liability of stockholders) at length with 
other cases in Lowry v. Inman, 2 Sweenfy, 
117, 141. Applied by Buonson, J., in 
Corning v. McCullough, 1 N. Y. 76. Ex- 
plained in Witherhead v. Allen, 28 Barb. 
601, 068, as applying, with respect to lia- 



BAILEr. 



33 



bility to costs, only to cases arising under 
the statute under which it arose. See Fisk 
■o. Keeseville Manuf. Co., 10 Paige, 592. 
Explained and criticised, in Lowry v. In- 
man, 2 Sweeny, 117. See latter case below. 

v. Bergen, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 642; 

mem. in 2 Sun, 520. On second trial 
plaintiff recovered ; judgment afE'd, except, 
aa to costs in 5 Sun, 555, which was afE'd in 
67 Jf. Y 346. 

T. Briggs, 56 N. Y. 407. See (De- 
termination of claims to real property) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 1638, n., 1639, n. 
Quoted and discussed (Ejectment as disting'd 
from action to construe will) in Sedgw. & W. 
on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 163. Disting'd 
(Action under L. 1853, c. 238) in Wager v. 
Wager, 23 Sun, 439, 442. 

v. Buell, 59 Barb. 158. Bev'd in 50 

JV. Y. 662. Decision in 50 JV Y. reluc- 
tantly followed (Voluntary payment of taxes) 
in Drake v. Shurtliff, 24 Sun, 422, 425. 
Disting'd (Liability of Assessors of taxes 
for error) in Dorn v. Backer, 61 Barb. 597. 

— — t. Bean, 5 Barb. 303. Explained 
(Examination before trial, in action for libel 
or slander) in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 Daly, 
238, 245. 

v. Freeman, 11 Johns. 221; s. c, 6 Am. 

Dec. 371. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh. 
Said (Promise to pay debt of another, when 
not within statute of frauds) in 6 Am. Dec. 
372, n., to have been recognized and followed 
in many cases in N. Y. and elsewhere. 

v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 16 Sun, 

503. Afl'd in Baley v. Homestead F. Ins. 
Co., 80 JV. Y. 21. 

v. Hudson River R. R. Co , 49 JV Y. 

77. See Bank of Rochester v. Jones; 
Krulder e. Ellison. Followed (Conditional 
delivery) in Dodge v. Johnson, 3 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & O.) 237. Quoted and explained in 
1 Beuj. on Sales, § 573 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 210; s. c, 8 Am. 

Dec. 309, with note. See Jackson v. Pierce. 
See to the contrary (Presumption of pav- 
ment) Dedlake v. Robb, 1 Woods, 680. See 
also Abb. Tr. J'Jv. 812. Collated with Jack- 
son v. Pierce, 10 Johns. 415, and other 
authorities in 30 Alb. L. J. 107. See cita- 
tions in 8 Am. Dec. 311, n. Discussed in 
Angell on Limitations, % 87, 6 ed. 

v. Johnson. 9 Com. 115. Approved 

(Modification of contract) in Morgan v. 
Butterfield, 3 Mich. 023; citing Mead v. 
Degolyer, 16 Wend. 640. 

y. , 1 Daly, 61. Followed (Mechan- 
ics' lien, as against succeeding owner), in 
Meyers v. Bennett, 7 Daly, 471, 475. • 

v. Lane, 21 Sow. Pr. 475. Modified on 

appeal, in 13 Abb. Pr. 354. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 3 Sill, 531, with 

note, wherein are collected citations of the 
case; s. c, 15 JV Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 674, 
with analytic list of cases citing this case. 
Affd in 2 Den. 433. See Bartlett v. 
Crozier; Gardner e. Trustees of New- 
burgh; Hay v. Cohoes Co.; Maxmilian v. 
3 



Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 
v. Furze; Rochester White Lead Co. v. 
City of Rochester ; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y. (Liability of municipal corpora- 
tions, when in the prosecution of public 
works). Doctrine of supreme court said 
in Darlington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 
iV. Y. 164, 199, to have been substan- 
tially repudiated in court of errors. Ex- 
plained in Hickok v. Trustees of Platts- 
burgh, 15 Barb. 442; Norton v. Wiswall, 
26 Barb. 624 ; King v. City of Brooklyn, 42 
Barb. 634; Van "Valkenburgh v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 43 Barb. 115; Garrison v. Same, 5 
Bosw. 503; Terry v. Same, 8 Bosw. 509; 
Russell v. Same, 2 Den. 482; Blake v. 
Ferris, 5 JV Y. 64; Roosevelt e. Draper, 23 
JV Y. 318, Followed in Rochester White 
Lead Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 iV. Y. 467 ; 
Delmonico v. IVIayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 
226. By Monell, Ch. J., in Ham v. Same, 
37 Super. Ct. (J. &. S.) 474. Disting'd in 
Kelley v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 JV Y. 436. 
By Denjo, J., in Howell v. City of Buffalo, 
15 K Y. 522. Approved in West. Sav. 
Fund v. City of Phila., 31 Pern. 175, 185. 
Cited with Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 JV- Y. 159; 
St. Peter v. Dennison, 58 Id. 416, in sup- 
port of dissenting opinion in reporter's note, 
33 Am. R. 302. Approved in Aldrich v. 
Tripp, 11 R. J. HI; s. c, 23 Am. R. 438; 
City of Toledo v. Cone, 41 Ohio, 15; 
Rowe v. Portsmouth, 56 JV. S. 291; s. c, 
22 Am. R. 467 ; People ex rel. Dunkirk, 
&c. R. R. Co. v. Batchclor. 53 JV Y. 128, 
141. Approved and applied in Hart v. 
City of Bridgeport, 13 Blatchf. C. Ct. 289, 
293. Followed in Winn «. Rutland, 52 Vt. 
481, 493; Oliver o. Worcester, 102 Mass. 
489 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 485, 489. Followed 
with Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 iV. Y. 109, 
in City of Jacksonville i>. Drew, 19 If la. 
106; s. c, 45 Am. R. 5. Explained in 
Alamango n. Supervisors of Albany, 25 
Sun, 551, 552. Cited as authority in Dono- 
van v. MoAlpin, 85 JV Y. 185, 188. De- 
cision iu 2 Den. 433 ; disting'd in Maxmilian 
v. Mayor, 62 JV Y. 170. Cited in illustra- 
tion in City of Coldwater v. Tucker, 36 
Mich. 474; s. c, 24 Am. R. 601 ; People ex 
rel. Park Comm'rs v. Common Council of 
Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; s. c, 15 Am. R. 202, 
209. Reviewed and criticised with Mayor 
&c. v. Furze, 3 Sill, 612; Weet v. Trus- 
tees of Brockport, 16 JV. Y. 162; Hutson 
v. Mayor, &c. • of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 289 ; 
Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburgh, 16 
JV. Y. 161 ; in City of Navasota v. Pearce, 
46 Tex. 525 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 279-283. 
Limited in Smith v. City of Rochester, 
76 K Y. 506, 510. Compare Sage v. City 
of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. JV. C. 279. Criticised 
and limited in Wright e. Holbrook, 52 JV 
S. 120. Disting'd in Bryant v. City of St. 
Paul {Minn. 1885), 23 Northw. Rep. 221. 
Quoted and discussed in Cooley on Const. 
Lim. 5 ed. 306. Compared in 3 Am. L. 
Reg. JV. S. 359. Included in 2 Thomps. 



34 



BAILEY— BAKER. 



on Kegl. 652. Commented upon in Wood 
on Nuisances, 2 ed. § 750. Discussed in 
Ang. & A. on Corp. § 33, 11 ed. Applied 
(Private rights and interests of municipal 
corporations) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. 
Britton, 12 Abb. N. G. 367, n.; Benson v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Bard. 2H4; Milhau 
v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 213. Re-affd in Lloyd 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 5 if! Y. 374 
Approved by Sandford, J., in Hutson ». 
City of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 323. Explained 
(Contracts made by legislative authority) 
in light of N. Y. Const, art.- 8, § 11, in 
Matter of Buffalo & Jamestown R. R. Co., 
5 Hun, 485. 

v. Ogden, 3 Johns. 399 ; s. c, 3 Am. 

Dee. 509, with note on p. 515, showing it to 
be a leading case on the statute of frauds, 
and to have been frequently cited in N. Y. 
and elsewhere; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. Law. 
ed. 647, with brief note on signature under 
statute of frauds. See Clason v. Bailey; 
Lansing v. Turner. Explained (Memo- 
randum) in Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 374, 
4 ed. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on 
Sales, § 234, n. 33 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 
Approved in Calkins v. Falk, 38 How. Pr. 
02. Followed (Constructive delivery) in 
Shindler v. Houston, 1 N. Y. 261, 272. 
Explained (Subscription) in Justice v. 
Lang, 42 K Y. 493, 503. Followed (Auc- 
tioneer as agent of both parties) in Davis 
v. Robertson, 1 Mill (S. C.) 71 ; s. c, 12 
Am. Dec. 611. On same point, see Benj. on 
Sales, § 268, and cases there cited. 

v. O'Mahony,10^&J. Pr. N. S. 270. Limi- 
ted (Conflicting receiverships) in O'Maho- 
ney v. Belmont, 62 N. Y. 133, 149. 

v. Ryder, 10 K Y. 363. Followed in 

Rome Exchange Bank «. Eames, 4 Abb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 83, 88, as in harmony with law 
now existing, that a party must recoyer 
according to case made by his complaint. 

v. Soutlmick, 6 Lans. 356. Aff d in 

Bailey v. Briggs, 56 K Y. 407. Disting'd 
(Infant, as party to proceeding to remove 
cloud on title) in Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. 
Holloday, 13 Abb. JST. C. 16. 

v. Stewart, 2 Bed/. 212. Aff'd in Bailey 

ii. Hilton, 14 Hun, 3. 

v. Stone, 41 How. Pr. 346. Disting'd 

(Inserting costs in judgment, without appli- 
cation to court) in Lultgor v. Rogers, 64 
Barb. 417. 

v. Wakeman, 2 Den. 220. See Stafford 

v. Rice. Cited (Indorsee, when chargeable 
with admissions of indorser) with Paige 
». Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361, in 2 Wharf. Com. 
on Ev. § 1163, a, as denying position there 
taken. 

v. Warden, 20 Johns. 129. Approved 

(Attorney not to be special bail) in Miles v. 
Clarke, 4 Bosw. 632, 635. 

Bailis v. Cocliran, 2 Johns. 417. Disting'd 
(Validity of commission issued ■ to take 
testimony) in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 41 
How. Pr. 421. 

Baiii v. Brown, 7 Lans. 506. Affd in 66 



N. Y. 283. Decision in 56 N. Y. applied 
(Duty of one acting in fiduciary character) 
in Farmer's and Merchaut's Bank*. Downey, 
53 Gal. 466; s. c, 31 Am-. R. 62. 

Baiiibridfre, Matter of, 4 Han, 674; s. c, 
more fully, 67 Barb. 293. 

Bainbridge v. Richmond, 17 Hun, 391. 
Affd, it seems, in 78 N. Y. 618, on opinion 
below. 

Baine v. City of Rochester, 12 Weekly Dig. 
419. Reported in 1 Civ. Pro. JR. 269. 

Baird v. Daly. 4 Lans. 426. Rev'd in 57 
K Y. 236 ; s. c, 15 Am. P. 488. Further 
decision in 68 iV. Y. 547. See Dougan 
v. Champlain Transp. Co. Decision in 57 
N. Y. disting'd (Jurisdiction of State courts 
in admiralty proceedings) in Bartlett v. 
Spicer, 75 N. Y. 528, 534. Decision in 68 
A r . Y. followed (Evidence of subsequent act 
to show negligence) in Morrell v. Peck, 24 
Hun, 37, 38. 

v. Gillette, 47 K Y. 186. Followed 

(Effect of admission of illegal evidence) - in 
Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 522. 

y. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 74 N. Y. 386. 

• See Moore v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Followed 
(Waiver of right of trial by jury) in People 
ex rel. Yale v. Eckler, 19 Hun, 609. 

v. Pridmore, 29 How. Pr. 253. Affd, 

on other grounds, in 31 How. Pr. 359. 
Decision in 31 How. Pr. approved (Sum- 
mons, when subject to stamp duty) in Cole 
■v. Bell, 48 Barb. 194. 

T. Walker, 12 Barb. '298; s. c, 1 Code 

Pep. N~ S.' 329. Compare (Limitations — 
when demand is necessary) Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 410. Collated, with other cases, in 
Throop, Justice's Man. 2 ed. 189. 

Bakeman v. Pooler, 15 Wend. 637. Dis- 
ting'd, (Essentials of tender) in Lawrence v. 
Miller, 86 W. Y. 131, 138. Explained in 2 
• Pars, on Contr. 642, n. h. 

v. Rose, 14 Wend. 105. Aft'd in 18 Id. 

146. See Jackson v. Lewis. 

v. Talbot. See Huson v. Young. 

Baken v. Harder, 4 Hun, 272. Reported 
in 6 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 440. Explained 
(Estate of married woman, when chargeable) 
in Covert v. Hughes, 8 Hun, 305. 

Baker, Matter of. See Holmes, Matter of. 

v. Arnold, 1 Cai. 258. Explained (What 

facts attorney or counsel may testify to) 
in Brandt ». Klein, 17 Johns. 338. Error 
in marginal note pointed out in Brown v. 
Payson, 60 N~. B. 443. Commented on in 
Dietrich v. Mitchell, 43 111. 40. 

v. , 3 Cai. 279 ; 2 N~. Y. Com. L. 

Law. ed. 644, with brief note. 

v. Arnot. 5 Sttp'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215; 

mem. in 2 Hun, 682. Non-suit aff'd in 67 
N. Y. 448. 

v. Baker. See Lansing v. Lansing ; 

People v. Gates. 

v. Barney, 8 Johns. 72; s. c, 5 Am. 

Dec. 326; 4 IT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 471, 
with brief note. Approved (Suits by or 
against married woman, while living apart 



BAKER. 



35 



from husband under deed of separation) in 
Tyler Inf. & Gob. 2 ed. § 352. Cited in 

2 Kent Com. 162, as following Nurse v 
Craig, 5 Bos. & P. 148. 

\ Bliss, 39 If. Y. 70. Commented 

upon (Constructive notice) in Wait on 
Fraud Conv. <;§ 3"4, 376, 378. Reviewed 
and appl'ed with Stearns v. Gage, 79 If. Y. 
102, lleed v. Gannon, 50 N. Y. 345; 
Pr.n^'.e v. Phillips, 5 Sandf. 157; Magee v. 
Badge-, 34 If. Y. 247; Belmont Branch 
Bank v. Hoge, 35 If. Y. 65, in Parker ». 
Conne-, 93 If. Y. 118. 

v. Biiurcicanlt. 1 Daly, 23. Explained 

(Sa'es — reservation of jus disponendi) in 
1 Benj. on Sales, § 587 (Sorbin's 4 Am. ed.). 
Disting'd in Higgins v. Murray, 73 If. Y. 
202, 254. 

v. Braman, 6 Hill, 471. Applied 

(Waiver of constitutional, &c. provision) in 
Keator v. Ulster, &c. Plank Road Co., 7 
How. Pr. 41 ; Requa v. Holmes, 19 Id. 444. 
Approved and applied in Embury v. Conner, 

3 If. Y. 518. Applied with Embury ». 
Conner, 3 If. Y. 511; Eaton v. Aspinwall, 
19 Id. 119 ; Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. 25, in 
McCarthy v. Lavasche, 89 III. 270 ; s. c, 31 
Am. It. 83 ; with note collating cases, and 
regarding Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N. Y. 587, as 
rather extreme. Applied (Statute operative 
in part) in People ex rel. Ryan v. Green 58 
If. Y. 303. 

- t. Brill; 15 Johns. 260. Cited (Proof 

by parol of incidents collateral to records) 
in 1 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 64. 

T. Chase, 6 Hill, 482. Quoted and ex- 

j^ained (Dower as affected by conveyance 
before marriage) in 1 Washb. on R. P. 4 ed. 
2x7. Referred to in 39 Am. Dec. 218, n., as 
containing what is a mere dictum. 

v. Cuvler. See Seymour v. Davis. 

v. Bisbrow. 3 Red/. 348. Aff'd in 18 

Hun, 29 ; and that aff d, it seems, in 79 If. 
Y. 631, on opinion below. Decision in 3 
Redf. explained (Improper investments by 
trustees) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 466, 
n. 5. 

v. Brake, 53 If. Y. 211; s. c, 13 Am. 

k. 507. Further decision in 66 N. Y. 
518; s. a, 23 Am. R. 80. See Coytelyou v. 
Lansing; Kingsbury v. Kirwan; Markham 
v. Jaudon ; Nourse v. Prime. Followed 
(Damages) in Mechanics' & Trad. Bank v. 
Farmers' & Mech. Nat. Bank, 60 If. Y. 40, 
52. Explained in Gruman v. Smith, 81 If. 
Y. 27, as overruling Markham v. Jaudon, 
41 N. Y. 235. Followed in Burridge 
v. Anthony, 1 City Ot. 245; Devlin v. 
Pike, 5 Daly, 85, 86, 108. Approved with 
Mechanics' & Trad. Bank of Buffalo v. 
Farmers' and Mechanics' Nat. B'k, 6 If. Y. 
40, in Ingrain v. Rankin, 47 Wis. 106; s. c, 
32 Am. It. 762 ; 2 Sedgw. on Meas. of Duma. 
7 ed. 384-5, n. Applied in Ladd v. Arkell, 
40 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 150, 159, 160; Colt 
■v. Owens, 47 Id. 430, 435. Aff'd in 90 If. 
. Y. 368, which see. Relied on in Ilnbbard 
v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 33 Wis. 



558 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 775, 781. Dis- 
ting'd in Hopper r. Smith, 63 How. Pr. 
34, 37, 39. Included with notes in Sedgio. 
Gases on Dama. 613. 

v. Freeman, 9 Wend. 36; s. c, 24 Am. 

Dee. 117, with note. Followed (Rule of 
damages in case of illegal seizure and sale) 
in Forsyth v. Palmer, 14 Venn. St. 96; s. c, 
53 Am. Dec. 519, with note. 

t. Gilman, 52 Barb. 38. Quoted and 

explained (Rights of subsequent^ creditors 
against fraudulent conveyance) in Wait on 
Fraud. Oonv. §*} 105-6. 

v. Udag, ZBarb. 203. Explained (Lien 

for salvage in case of property wrecked in 
navigable river) in Baker t>. Hoag, 7 Barb. 
113, which was overruled in IN. Y. 555; 
s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 431, with note. Decision 
in 7 Barb, referred to with Sturgis t>. Law, 
3 Sandf. 451, and other cases, in Waples 
Proe. in .Rem % 511, as contrary to spirit of 
the maritime law, and the more liberal 
practice now prevailing. Followed in N. 
Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Haws, 35 Super. 
Gt. (J. & S.) 372, as to finder of lost chattel 
having no lien thereon. 

v. Home Life Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 402; 

s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 582; aff'd in 64 
If. Y. 648. Another proceeding in 63 IT. 
Y. 630. 

v. Johnson, 2 Hill, 342. See Brincker- 

hoff v. Wemple. Disting'd and limited 
(Trespass by canal contractor) in St. Peter 
v. Denison, 58 If. Y. 416, 422. 

v. , 2 Eobt. 570. Aff'd in 42 If. Y. 

126. 

T. Judges of Ulster, 4 Johns. 191 ; Wet- 
more v. Law, 34 Barb. 515; Cl.uk v. Rowling, 
3 If. Y. 226. Approved (Disposition of 
defense arising after judgment ; when same 
available on motion) in Heckling v. Allen, 
15 Fed. Rep. 198. 

v. Kenworthy, 41 If. Y. 215. Followed 

(Application of moneys by sheriff to payment 
of cU.bt owed by plaintiff in execution) in 
Adams v. Welsh, 43 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 52, 
56. Disting'd (Levy on property in hands 
of officer of court) in Dunlop v. Patterson 
Fire Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 145, 150. 

v. Lamb, 11 Hun, 522. Followed 

(Married woman's contract) in Wilson Sew. 
Mach. Co. v. Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 480. 

v. Lever, 5 Hun, 114. Aff'd in 67 If. 

Y. 304; s. c, 23 Am. R. 123. 

v. Lorillartl, 4 If. Y. 257. Explained 

(Jurisdiction of equity to direct sale of 
infants' real estate) in 2 Perry on Trusts, 
3 ed. § 610, n. 1. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Abb. Pr. 82. 

Followed (Powers of supervisors of N Y. 
county to legislate for city of N. Y.) in Da- 
vies v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Super. Ct.' 
{J. <bS.) 373. 

v. People, 3 Cow. 680. Applied (Imposi- 
tion by legislature of additional qualifica- 
tions to office seeking) in Black v. Trower, 
Sup^n. Ct. App., Va., May, 1884, 18 
Reporter, 189. 



36 



BAKER— BALDWIN. 



V. , 15 Hun, 256, Rev'd in People 

0. Baker, 76 N. T. 78; s. c, 32 Am. £. 
274. Discussed (Conflict of divorce laws) 
in 2 Bisk, on Mar. and Bit. 6 ed. §§ 163, 
n. 3, 167, n. 1, 168, n. 1 ; also in Tyler Inf. 
& Cov. 2 ed. § 688. 

v. Pope, o Svp"m. Ct. (T. & C.) 102. 

See Aldrich v. Sager. Compare (Action 
under civil damage act where no action lies 
against the intoxicated person) in Quain v. 
Russell, 8 Hun, 319. 

v. Spencer, 58 Barb. 248. AS'd in 47 

N. Y 562. 

t. Squier, 1 Hun, 448. See other cases 

collected <Usage to vary contract) in 1 
Abb. N. C. 470, 472, n. 

t. Stackpoole, 9 Cow. 420; s. c, 18 Am. 

Bee. 508. Said in note thereto at p. 515, 
citing cases, to have been frequently approved 
and followed as to power of partner to bind 
copartners after dissolution, and as to 
application of payments. On first point, 
see note to 6 Am. Bee. 574, and 13 Id. 505. 
Eeported in 9 JST. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 689, 
with brief note. Reviewed (Power of part- 
ner to bind copartners) with Hackley v. 
Patrick, 3 Johns. 536 ; Walden v. Sherburne, 
15 Id. 424; Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 If. 
Y. 523; Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 H. Y. 
176; National Banka. Norton, 1 Hill, 572; 
in Tate v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339; s. c, 26 
Am. R. 709, 712, 714, 720. Followed in 
Hart v. Woodruff, 24 Hun, 510, 512. 

v. Thrasher, 4 Ben. 493. Followed 

(Deed accompanied by agreement to re-con- 
vey) in Macaulay v. Porter, 71 IT. Y. 173, 
179. Belied on in Randall v. Sanders, 23 
Hun, 614. 

v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., 6 Eobt. 

393; s. c, 6 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 144; 37 How. 
Pr. 126. Rev'd in 43 IT. Y- 283. See 
Roehner ■». Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. 
Decision in 43 N. Y. followed (Insurance 
by husband for benefit of wife) in Thomp- 
son v. American Tontine Life, &c. Ins. Co., 46 
JV. Y. 674 ; Estes v. World Mut, Life Ins. 
Co., 6 Hun, 349. Applied (Wrongful act 
of agent) in Krumm v. Beach, 25 Hun, 293, 
296. To the contrary (Evidencu of payment 
of premium) see authorities cited in Abb. 
i Tr. Bo. 481, n. 3. Disting'd (Non payment 
of premium note) in Pendleton v. Knicker- 
bocker Ins. Co., 7 Fed. Bop. 175. 176 ; s. c, 
12 Hep. 457. Relied on with Wall i\ 
Home Ins. Co., 36 N. Y. 167; Beadle v. 
Chenango Co. Mutual Ins. Co., 3 Hill, 161; 
in Joliffe v. Madison Mut. Ins. Co., 39 Wis. 
Ill; s. c, 20 Am. B. 35, 37. 

v. Van Epps, 58 How. Pr. 401. Aft'd 

in 60 Id. 79; mem. s. c, 22 Hun, 460. 

v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505. See Brown 

v. Sax. Criticised and disting"d (Liability 
of one tenant in common to another for 
waste in cutting timber) in Elwell v. Burn- 
side, 44 Barb. 447. Approvingly reviewed 
(Recovery of enhanced value of property 
that has been tortiously taken) with Brown 
v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95; Rice v. Hollenbcck, 19 



Barb. 664; Walther n. Wetmore, 1 E. D. 
Smith, 7; Pierce v. Schcnck, 3 Hill, 28, in 
a lengthy note 24 Am. Bee. 70-73, and 
shown to maintain a doctrine which is not 
confined to the N. Y. courts, though it is, 
one which has not met with universal favor. 
Cited in Wooden ware Co. v. V. S., 105 IT. 
8. (Otto) 432. 

v. Wood bridge, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 

Add. 11 ; s. c. more fully in 66 Barb. 261. 

v. Woodruff, 2 Barb. 520. Affd in 2 

N. Y. 153. 
Bakewell v. Ellsworth, 6 Hill, 484. See 
(Sheriffs sale of bailor's interest) Code Civ. 
Pro: 1881, §§ 1412, n., 1428, n. Followed 
in Stief v. Hart, 1 N. Y. 20, 24, 29, 30, 38. 
Balbo v. People, 19 Hun, 424. Affd in 80 
If. Y. 424. Compare (Disqualification of 
juror) State v. Spaulding, 24 Kans. 1. 
Applied in Abbott *. People, S6 K Y. 460, 
468. Followed in Cox v. People, 80 2v". Y. 
513. Followed with Cox v. People, 80 iV 
Y. 500; People v. Cornetti, 92 Id. 85 
(Review of decision of trial judge overruling 
challenge for bias) in Peopie v. Casey, 96 
N. Y. 115. 
Balch v. N.Y. & Oswego Midland R. R. Co., 
46 If. Y. 521. See Aikin v. Wasson. Followed 
(Labor performed, for which stockholders are 
liable) in Viele v. Wells, 9 Alb. K O. 278. 
Relied on (Extent of statutory lien for per- 
sonal services) with Stryker y. Cassidy, 10 
Hun, 1.8; Ericsson v. Brown, 38 Barb. 390; 
Aikin v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482; in Hale v. 
Brown, 59 Jv~. U. 551; s. c, 47 Am. B. 224. 
Balcoin v. Woodruff, 9 Barb. 13. Applied 
(Amendment) in Hatch v. Central Nat' I B'k, 
78 N. Y. 487, 490. Explained in Englis 
v. Furniss, 3 Abb. Pr. 82. 
Baldwin v. Barrett. See Larkin v. Bobbins. 

v. Brown. 37 How. Pr. 385. See (Costs 

on appeals from justice's judgment) Code 
Civ. Pro. § :;070, n. Denied in Humiston 
v. Bailard, 39 How. Pr. 93. Explained in 
Kelly v. Bonestpel, 29 Hun. 546. 
V. , 16 K Y. 359. Applied (Bound- 
ary line, — when established by acquiescence) 
in Ratcliffo v. Cary, 4 Abb. Ct. Ajip. Dec. 
8; Pierson v. Mosher, 30 Barb. 84; Corkhill 
v. Landers, 44 Barb. 228; Robinson v. Phil- 
lips. 65 Barb. 425 ; Reed v. Farr, 35 N. Y. 
116. Explained in Hubbell «. McCulloch, 
47 Barb. 299 ; Coon v. Smith, 29 N. Y. 399. 
Followed with Dibble v. Rogers, 13 Wend. 
539 ; Rockwell v. Adams, 7 Cow. 762 : Mc- 
Cormick v. Barnum, 10 Wend. 104; Kip v. 
Norton, 12 Id. 130; Jackson v. MeConnell, 
19 Id. 176; Turner v. Baker, 64 Mo. 218; 
s. c, 27 Am. B. 226, 238, with note. 

v. Calkins. 10 Wend. 166. Questioned 

(Reviewing principle of assessment on cer- 
tiorari) in Matter of Mt. Morris Square, 2 
Hill, 14. Reviewed (Limit of review on 
certiorari) with other cases in People v. Board 
of Police, 39 N. Y. 509. Applied (Court of 
review to assume truth of facts not disputed 
below) in Oakiey v. Van Horn, 21 Wend. 808; 
Paige v. Fazackerly, 36 Barb. 396 ; Colver v. 



BALDWIN— BALL. 



37 



Van Valen, 6 How. Pr. 105 ; Jencks v. Smith, 
1 N. Y. 92. Explained (Limit of recovery 
for continuing nuisance) in Waggoner v. 
Germaine, 3 Den. 313. 

■ v. City of Buffalo, 29 Barb. 396. Sub- 
sequent decision in 35 N. Y. 375, over- 
ruling in part that in 29 Barb. See Stone 
«. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 35 
N. Y. explained (Evidence brought up on 
certiorari) in People v. Board of Police, 39 
JSf. Y. 506. Decision in 29 Barb, followed 
(Injunction to restrain opening of street) in 
Miller v. Mayor, &c. of Mobile, 47 Ala. 163; 
s. c, 11 Am. B. 768. 

v. City of Oswego, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 

62. See also (Municipal contract) Bigler 
■o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Abb. N. 0. 
I 51, 66, n. Also (Limit of cost of public 
■works) People ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly, Id. 
383, 468. 

v. Liverpool & Great Western Steam- 
ship Co., 11 Hun, 496. Affd in 74 K Y. 
125; s. c, 30 Am. R. 277. 

v. McArthur, 17 Barb. 414. Disting'd 

(Disqualification of judge by relationship) 
in Matter of Dodge & Stevenson Manuf. Co., 
77 2f. Y. 101. 

v. Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 9 ; s. c, 35 

Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 85. Approved and 

. followed (Burden and pleading of proof 

•when statute of limitations is set up) in 

Barlow v. Arnold, 6 Fed. Sep. 355. Ex- 

, plained in 8 Abb. JT. G. 198, n., 199, n., 
200, n. 

v. Mayor, &c., of N. Y., 42 Barb. 549. 

AfTd in 45 Barb. 359; s. c, 30 Row. Pr. 
289, which was afFd in 2 Keyes, 387; s. c, 
1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 75. See Darlington 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Milhau v. Sharp. 

v. Munn, 2 Wend. 399 ; s. c. , 10 N. Y. Gom. 

L. Law. ed. 173; with brief note. See Bush v. 
Cole ; Staats v. Ten Eyck. Examined (Dam- 
ages for breach of covenants to convey, &c.) 
in Fletcher «. Button, 6 Barb. 65 1" Ex- 
plained aud applied in Noyes v. Anderson, 1 
Duer, 852. Approved in Cockcroft v. N. Y. 
& H. R. li. Co., 69 jK Y. 204. Criticised and 
disapproved with Peters v. McKeon, 4 Den. 
546, in Doherty v. Dolan, 65 Me. 87; s. c, 
20 Am. R. 677, 679. Said in 20 Am. Dec. 
632, »., to have been frequently approved in 
N". Y. Disting'd in Brinkerhoff v. Phelps, 
24 Barb. 100, with which it is reconciled by 
later decision in 43 Barb. 474. Explained 
in Conger v. Weaver, 20 K Y. 140, 144. Dis- 
ting'd (What will support averment of per- 
formance) in Holmes v. Holmes, 9 J¥. Y. 528. 

v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 3 Bosw. 

530. Explained (Insured going beyond ter- 
ritorial limits) in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 474, n. c. 
Disting'd (Non-performance of express con- 
dition in contract) in Wheeler v. Conn. 
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. 543, 552, and 
said to have been overruled by Evans v. U.S. 
Life Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 304. 

- — t. Palmer, 10 N. Y. 232. Discussed 
(Statute of Frauds — verbal contracts — colla- 
teral agreements) in Browne on Stat, of 



Frauds, § 117, b, 4 ed. Recognized as au- 
thority (Part payment of purchase money) 
in Morrill v. Cooper, 65 Barb. 512, 517. 

v. Perry, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 32. Rev'd in 

25 Hun, 72; s. c, 61 How. Pr. 289 ; 1 Civ. 
Pro.'R. 118. 

v. Ryan, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 251. Re- 
lied on (Fraudulent conveyance) in Childs 
v. Connor, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 471. 

v. Tynes. See Robinson v Mcintosh. 

v. U. S. Tel. Co., 54 Barb. 505; s. c, 

more fully, 6 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 405. Subse- 
quent decision in 1 Lans. 125. AfTd in 45 
H. Y. 744. See De Rutte t>. N. Y., &c. 
Tel. Co. ; Hamilton v. McPherson ; Lands- 
berger ». Magnetic Tel. Co. ; Leonard v. N. 
Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co. Decision in 1 
Bans, reviewed (Liability of telegraph 
companies) with De Rutte o. N. Y., Albany 
& Buffalo Tel. Co., 1 Daly, 547; Breese v. 
U. S. Tel. Co., 45 Barb. 274 ; Leonard «. 
N. Y, Albany & Buffalo Tel. Co., 41 2T. 
Y. 544; s. c, 1 Am. R 46; Rittenhouse ■». 
Independent Line of Telegraph, 1 Daly, 
474, in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 
77 Va. 173 ; s. c, 46 Am. E. 715 ; Griffin v. 
Colver, 16 jY. Y. 489, being with other cases 
relied on, on the question of measure of 
damages. Decision in 45 N. Y. cited with 
approval in Hubbard v. Western Union Tel. 
Co., 33 Wis. 558; s. c, 14 Am. R. 775. 
Followed in Daniel v. Western Union Tel. 
Co., 61 Tex. 4:52; s. c, 48 Am. R. 305. 
Decision in 1 Lans. 125, explained in 2 
Pars, on Gontr. 257, j., n. p. 

Baley v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. See 
Bailey v. Homestead F. Ins. Co. Followed 
(Condition in policy) in Green v. Homestead 

. Fire Ins. Co., 82 H. Y. 517. 

Balja v. Kawley, 37 How. Pr. T20. See 
(Return on appeal from justice's judgment) 
Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 3053, n. 

Ball v. Billiard, 52 Barb. 141. Disapproved 
(Statute of limitations as to married women) 
in Clark v. McCann, 18 Hun, 13, 15. 

v. Gardner, 21 Wend. 270. Followed 

(Liability on bond given to obtain attach- 
ment from justice's court) in Bennett v. 
Brown, 20 K Y. 99, 102. Applied to case 
of bond given on appeal, in Hinckley v. 
Kreitz, 36 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 413, 423, 
but disting'd in 58 K Y. 583, 588 ; which 
rev'd 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 413. 

v. Goodenough, 37 How. Pr. 479. See 

to the contrary (Assignment to receiver) 
Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff, 41 Super. Gt. (</". 
& S.) 527. 

v. Liney, 44 Barb. 505. Rev'd in 48 

N. Y. 6. See Higgius v. Whitney. Decision 
iu 48 JV". Y. ; relied on (Mitigation of 
damages in trespass) in Parker v. Conner, 
44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 416. 

v. Loomis, 29 N. Y. 412. Disting'd 

(Liability of indemnitors of sheriff) in 
Chapman «. Douglas, 5 Daly, 244, 253. - 

v. Miller, 17 How. Pr. 300. Disting'd 

(Sale of real estate of decedent) in East River 
Nat. Bk. «. McCaffrey, 3 Red/. 97. 



BALLAED— BANK OF ALBION. 



— t. Ryers, 3 Cat. 84. Followed (Control 
of court over surplus moneys arising on 
sheriff's sale) with Van Nest v. Yeomans, 
1 Wei. A. 87; in Stebbins v. Walker, 2 Green 
(K J) 90; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 499, 505, 
with note; Williams®. Rogers, 5 Johns. 163, 
cited as authority, and Sandford v. Roosa, 
12 Johns. 162, disting'd. See, also, Cox ». 
Marlett, 7 Vroom (N~. J.) 390. 

Ballard v. Burgett, 47 Bar b. 646. Aft" d in 40 
A 7 ! Y. 314. See Herring v. Hoppock ; Mc- 
Neil v. Tenth Nat. Bk. ; Steelyards v. Singer ; 
Wait v. Green. Decision in 40 N. Y. followed 
(Conditional sales) in Powell v. Preston, 1 
Hun, 513. Disting'd in Fitzgerald v. Fuller, 
19 Hun, 180; Hoyt v. Baker, 15 Abb. Pr. 
A 7 ". S. 412; Moore ». Miller, 6 Lans. 401. 
Followed' in Maynard *. Anderson, 54 A 7 ". 
Y. 641 ; Cole v. Berry, 13 Vroom (A 7 ". J.) 
308; s. c, 36 Am. R. 511, 513, 51C; McNeil 
«. Tenth National Bank of N. Y., 55 Barb. 
59, 69; Austin v. Dye, 46 N. Y. 500. Ex- 
plained in City Bank v. Rome, &c. W. 

6 O. R. R. Co., 44 K Y. 136; Moore «. 
Metropolitan Nat. Bk., 55 A". Y. 46; 
Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bk. v. Logan, 
74 N. Y. 584; 1 Benj on Sales, § 427 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) ; 7a!. §§ 437, 448. Dis- 
ting'd in Conner v. Cunningham, 77 N. Y. 
391, 398. Followed in Singer Mf'g Co. v. 
Graham, 8 Oreg. 17; s. c, 34 Am. R. 572, 
575. 

V. Lockwood, 1 Daly, 158. To the con- 
trary (Testimony of parties as to intent) 
Pope v. Hart, 35 Barb. 630. See also Abb. 
Tr. Eii. 620. 

v. Walker. See Lattimore v. Harsen. 

Ballin v. Dillaye, 37 A. Y. 35. See Yale «. 
Dederer. Applied (Liability of separate 
estate of married woman) in Corn Exchange 
Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 42 A 7 ". Y. 633; Cash- 
man v. Henry, 75 N. Y. 110; s. c, 5 Abb. A 7 . 
C. 230, 236. Explained in Coaldey v. 
Chamberlain, 8 Abb. Pi: A 7 : S. 44. Ap- 
proved, as a decision of right and principle, 
in Jackson v. Rutledge, 3 Lea {Tenn.) 626; 
s. c, 31 Am. R. 655. 

Ballon v. Boland, 14 Hun, 355. See (Dis- 
continuance of supplementary proceedings) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. 

v. Cunningham, 60 Barb. 425. Ap- 
proved (Sale under mortgage containing 
condition to sell) in Jones on Oh. M. § 791. 
Reviewed with other cases in Thomas on M. 
452. Seelluggansi). Fryer, 1 Lans. 276, and 
dissenting opinion of Milleh, J., in 4 Lans, 
74. Cited with approval (Power of mort- 
gagee of chattels to sell without notice) in 
Harris «. Lynn, 25 Kans. 281. 

v. Parsons, 07 Barb. 19, s. c, 52 How. 

Pr. 164. Affd in 55 A 7 ". Y. 073, on ojwnion 
of Bockes, J., below. Another decision on 
merits in 11 Hun, 602. 

Baltzer v. Nicolay, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
203. Rev'd in 53 N. Y. 467. Decision in 
53 A 7 ". Y. commented on (Remedy for As- 
sumption of authority) in Noe v: Gregory, 

7 Daly, 283, 285. Commented on (Memo- 



randum required by Statute of Frauds) in 
Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 135, a, 4 ed. 
Cited in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 655. 
Bamberg v. Stern, 76 N~. Y. 555. Compare 
(Appeal to Common Pleas) for the present 
statute Code Civ. Pro. § 3191. 
Bancroft v. Shannon, 42 How. Pr. 1. See 
(Justices' Court — Appeal — Offer to compro- 
mise) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3#0, n. 

v. Wardwell, 13 Johns. 489 ; s. c, 7 

Am. Dec. 396. See Smith v. Stewart. Said 
in 7 Am. Dec. 397, n., to have been followed 
in Pa., Me., Mo. and Cal., citing the cases 
on the point, that an action for use and 
occupation will not lie against one holding 
as a purchaser, and not as a tenant. 

Bancroft v. White, 1 Cat. 185. See Sparrow 
v. Kingman. Overruled (Estoppel by deed) 
in Sparrow ■».- Kingman, 1 A 7 ". Y. 242, 255; 
but compare McClure v. Engelbardt, 17 111. 
50. 

Bander v. Bander, 7 Barb. 560. Followed 
(Duty to pay interest on notes annually) in 
Koehring ■». Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403; 
s. c, 21 Am. R. 402. 

Banfield v. Haegar. 45 Super. Ct. {J. &S.) 
428; s.c.,7 Abb. N. C. 318. Compare (Al- 
legation of conversion, &c, in replevin) Code 
Cie. Pro. § 1721. 

v. Ruinsey, 2 Hun, 112; s. c, 4 Sup'm. 

Ct. (T. & C.) 322. 

Bangs, Matter of, 15 Barb. 264. Rev'd as 
Bangs v. Gray, in 12 N. Y. 477. See Thomas 
v. Whallon. / 

t. Bailey, 37 Barb. 630. Disting'd 

(Allowance of interest) in Sands v. Annes- 
ley, 56 Barb. 598. 

v. Duckinficld, 18 A 7 ! Y. 592. Followed 

(Turisdiction to appoint receiver) in Palmer 
«. Clark, 4 Abb. JST. C. 25, 28. 

v. Gray. See Thomas v. Whallon. 

— — v. Mcintosh, 23 Barb. 591. Overruled 
in effect (Jurisdiction of proceedings against 
corporations) iu Bangs v. Duckiutield, 18 
AT Y. 592. 

v. Skidmore, 24 Barb. 29. ATd in 21 

A 7 ". Y. 136. 

■ v. Strong, 10 Paige, 11. Al'd in 1 

Hill, 250; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 64, with note. 
Applied (Discharge of suretv) iu Hagey v. 
Hill, 75 Penn. St. 108; s. c'iS'Jm. R. 583. 
Subsequent decision in 4 A 7 ". Y. Z\5. 

v. Wait, 37 Barb. 29, 43. D^ting'd 

(Allowance of interest) in Sand/, r. Annes- 
ley, 56 Barb. 598. 

Bank Commissioners v. Bank o? Ft'ifMo. 6 
Pai. 497. Applied (Dissolution, oi jurpora- 
tiou) in Kincaid e. Dwinelle, '>? A Y. 548, 
553. Explained and distill} '/ with Ver- 
planck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., '.' Paige, 438; 
Davenport v. City Bank of Br "alo, 9 Paige, 
12; in Dewey r. St. Albans 'trust Co., 56 
Vt. 470; s. c, 48 Am. R. -803 

v- St. Lawrence Bank. 3 Barb. 436. 

Rcv'din7 A". Y. 513. 

Bank for Savings v. Frank, 5( How. Pr. 403. 
Aff'd in 45 Super. Ct. (J. & J) 404. 

Bank of Albion v. Barns, 2 i ins. 52. Affd 



BANK. 



in 46 If. Y. 170. Decision in 40 If. Y. 
applied (Mortgage by wife) in Smith v. Fel- 
lows, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 36, 49; 
Hassey v. Wilke, 55 Cal. 525. Followed 
(Presumption arising from husband having 
possession of a deed or mortgage of wife's 
property) in Hoffman v. Treadwell, 2 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 60. 

T. Smith, 27 Barb. 489. Recognized 

(Evidence to vary indorsement) with Sea- 
bury v. Hungerford, 2 Hill, 80; Hall v. 
Newcomb, 7 Id. 416; in Downer v. Chese- 
brough, 86 Conn. 39; s. c, 4 Am. It. 29, as 
holding what is the law in N. Y. Relied 
on with Thompson v. Ketcliam, 8 Johns. 
14G; Patterson v. Hull, 9 Cow. 747; Payne 
v. Lodue, 1 Hill, 116; Hall v. Newcomb, 7 
Id. 416, in Dale v. Gear, 38 Conn. 15; s. c, 
9 Am. R. 353, 309. Followed with Fassin 
v. Hubbard, 55 If. Y. 465; Seabury v. 
Hungerford, 2 Hill, 80-82, in Charles v. 
Denis, 42 IFis. 56; 8. c, 24 Am. R. 383. 
Followed with Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 
H. Y. 465. in Doolittle v. Ferry, 20 Hans. 
230 ; s. €., 27 Am. R. 167: Cited in Rodney 
v. Wilson, 67 Mo. 123 ; s. c, 29 Am. R. 499. 
See to the contrary, 1 Dan. Heg. Instr. 
§717. Sea Abb. Tr. Ev. 415. 

Bank of America v. Pollock, 4 Edw. Qh. 
413. See Pascoag Bank v. Hunt. Ex- 
plained (Resulting trust) in 1 Perry on 
Flints, 3 ed. § 135, n. 2. 

v. Woodworth, 18 Johns. 315. Rev'd 

in Wood worth *. Bank of America, 19 Id. 
391. Explained (Alteration of note) in 
Benedict v. Cowden,'49 N. Y. 403. Cited as 
authority with Nazro «. Fuller, 24 Wend. 
374, ir, Toomer v. Rutland, 57 Ala. 379; 
s. c, 2i, Am. R. 722. 

Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' & Trad. 
Bank, 50 If. Y. 501. Applied (Validity 
of by-latv inhibiting transfer of stock) in 
Driscoll o. West, &c. Man'f'g Co., 59 N. Y. 
96, 104. Disting'd in Leggett v. Bank of 
Sing Sing, 24 If. Y. 283. Applied in Lock- 
wood v. Mechanics' Nat'l Bank, 9 R. 1. 308 ; 
s. c, 11 Am. R. 253, 260. Explained in 
Ang. & A. on Corp. § 535, n. 5, 11 ed. Relied 
on (Compelling transfer of stock) in Cush- 
man v. Thayer Mfg. Jewelry Co., 7 Daly, 
330, 332. Applied (Damages in proceeding 
of equitable nature) in Seeley v. N. Y. Nat. 
Exch. B'k, 8 Daly, 400, 405. 

y. Wolf, 18 How. Pr. 102. See in 

accord (Right of a defendant, answering 
separately, to costs) Wilklow v. .Bell, 18 
How. Pr. 897. 

Bank of Auburn v. Aikin, 18 Johns. 137. 
See Jackson v. Plumbe. Overruled (Plea 
of mil tiel corporation, — when good) in Bank 
of Auburn v. Weed, 19 Id. 300. 

v. Roberts, 45 Barb. 407. AfTd in 44 

K Y. 192. See Wilson v. Maltby. 

• v. Weed. See Bank of Michigan v. 

Williams; Bank of Utica v. Smalley; 
Dutchess Cotton Manufactory v. Davis; 
Jackson it. Plumbe. 

Bank of Beloit v. Beale, 11 Abb. Pr. 375; 



s. c, 20 How. Pr. 331. AfTd in 7 Bosw. 
611, which was aff'd in 34 If. Y. 473. Sec 
Lloyd v. Brewster; Thurstfl. West. Applied 
with Morris fl. Rexford, 18 If. Y. 542; 
Rodermund v. Clark, 46 Id. 354; Taussig t. 
Hart, 49 Id. 301 ; Fields v. Bland, 81 Id. 239 
(Election of remedies) in Avilau. Manhattan 
Chemical Co. of N. Y., 32 Hun, 1. Cited 
(Prosecution of suit by principal as ratifica- 
tion of unauthorized act) in Whart. Com. 
on Ag. § 90, n. 

Bank of California v. Collins, 5 Hun, 209. 
Further decision, it seems, in 7 Id. 336 
Doctrine in 5 Hun not accepted (Survival cf 
right of action against trustee for failure to 
file report) in Carley v. Hodges, 19 Hun, 187. 
With decision in 7 Hun, compare Whitnev 
Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 ST. Y. 62. See 
Garrison v. Howe. 

Bank of Chenango y. Hyde, 4 Cow. 567. See 
Grandin v. Le Roy. Explained and followed 
(Collateral security) in Bank of State of 
New York v. Vanderhorst, 32 If. Y. 553. 
Approved (Action on note for benefit of 
another) with Bank of Rutland v. Buck, 5 
Wend. 66, in Bank of Newbury v. Rand, 38 
N. H. (1 Chand.) 166. Approved (Suit on 
note in name of bank) in Elliot v. Abbot, 
MIf.H. 549; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 227, with 
note. 

Bank of Commerce v. Rutland & Wash. B 
K. Co., 10 How. Pr. 1. See Hulbert r. 
Hope Mut. Ins. Co. Approved (Foreign 
corporations) in Cumberland Coal & Iron 
Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co., 30 Barb. 
159, 164. 

v. Union Bank, 3 K Y. 230. Followed 

(Recovery of money paid by mistake) in 
Marine Nat. Bank v. Nat. City Bank, 36 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 470, which was, how- 
ever, rev'd in 59 N. Y. 67, 77; Allen «. 
Fourth Nat. Bank of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. 
{J. & S.) 137, 149. Applied in Nat. B'k of 
Commonwealth v. Grocer's Nat. B'k, 2 
Daly, 291 ; Kingston B'k ». Eltinge, 40 
N. Y. 395 ; Security B'k v. Nit. B'k, 67 
If. Y. 463. Disting'd in Susquehanna 
Valley Bank v. Pickering, 1 9 Hun, 230 ; in 
dissenting opinion of Ruoolbs, J., in God- 
dard v. Merchants' B'k, 4 If. Y. 156; in 
dissenting opinion of Sedcwick, J., in Nat. 
B'k of Commerce v. Nat. Mech. B'k, 35 
Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 295. Criticised with 
Goddard v. Merchants' Bank, 4 If. Y. 147, 
as containing dicta respecting payment 
of bill where signature is forged, in 
National Park Bank v. Fourth National 
Bank, 7 Abb. Pr. If. S. 138. Followed with 
National Park Bank v. Ninth Nat'l Bank, 
55 Barb. 124; which was affd in 46 If. J'. 
77; s. c, 7 Am. R. 310, in Redington v. 
Woods, 45 Cal. 406; s. c, 13 Am. R. 190, 
196. 

Bank of Commonwealth v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 43 If. Y. 184. See Peyser v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y. ; Stone ». Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 
Followed (Recovery of money paid on assess- 
ment) in Newman v. Livingston County, 45 



40 



BASK. 



XT. Y. 682 ; Union Nat. B'k e. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 51 N. Y. 638. Applied in People 
v. Ingersoll, 67 Barb. 478. Disting'd in 
Dewey v. Supervisors of Niagara, 2 Hun, 
392, 395, 398; Peyser ». Mayor, &c. of N. 
Y., 8 Hun, 416; Nash v. Mayor, &e. of 
N. Y., 9 Hun, 218. Disting'd (Review of 
assessment collaterally) in Strusburgh v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 
511. See, also, Merchants' Nat. Bank of 
N. Y. v. Supervisors of N. Y, 5 Sup'ra. Ct. 
(.r. & C.) 393, 399, 400. 

v. Mudgett, 44 XT. Y. 514. Disting'd 

(Comparison of hands) in Hardy v. Norton, 
66 Barb. 527, 536. 

Bank of Genesee v. Field, 19 Wend. 643. 
Overruled (Severance of action against two 
or more parties to note or bill) in Miller v. 
McCagg, 4 Hill, 35. 

- — v. Patch in B'k, 13 K Y. 309. Subse- 
quent decision in 19 Id. 312. See N. Y. 
African Society v. Varick. Included with 
notes in 2 Ames Oases on B. & N. 559. 
Disting'd (Execution of written instrument 
by agent) in Booth v. Farmers' & Mechanics' 
Nat. Bk., 4 Lam. D06. Applied in Barbour 
v. Litchfield, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 655; 
Randall v. Snyder, 1 Bans. 166. Disting'd 
in Dabney v. Stevens, 40 How. Pr. 349. 
Followed (Indorsement by cashier) in Bank 
of N. Y. v. Bank of Ohio, 29 K Y. 619; 
Robb v. Ross Co. Bk., 41 Barb. 592. 
Applied (Estoppel from representation of 
agent) in Griswold v. Haven, 25 iVi Y. 603 ; 
N. Y. & N. H. R. R. C. v. Schuyler, 34 
If. Y. 59. Approved (Power of bank to make 
accommodation indorsement) in Bridgeport 
City B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co. T 30 
Barb. 423. Applied in Central B'k v. 
Same, 26 Barb. 33. Compare Bank of 
State of N. Y. v. Farmers' Branch, &c. of 
Ohio, 36 Barb. 332, 334. Explained in 
Farmers' & Mechanics' B'k v. Empire Stone 
Dressing Co., 5 Bom. 288, 289. Collated 
with other cases in Field on Ultra Vires, 93. 
Applied (Enforcing contracts ultra vires) in 
Farmers', &c. B'k v. Butchers' & Drovers' 
B'k, 16 K Y. 129. Approved in Bissell «. 
Mich. Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 
278. Applied (Sufficiency of pleading) in 
Betts v. Bache, 14 Abb. Pr. 279. Explained 
in Abbott s. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 12 
Abb. Pr. IT. S. 468. Followed (Estoppel 
against defense of usury) in Ferguson v. 
Hamilton, 35 Barb. 437. Compare Mason 
v. Anthonv, 3 Keyes, 609. Denied in Payne 
v. Burnhain, 62 K Y. 72. Followed (Plea 
of corporate existence) in Shoe & Leather 
B'k •». Brown, 18 How. Pr. 308; Phenix B'k 
v. Donaell, 41 Barb. 573 ; Stone v. Western 
Transp. Co., 38 K Y. 242. Explained 
(Appeal) in Cook v. N. Y. Floating Dry 
Dock Co., 18 K Y. 239. Decision in 19 
N. Y. followed (Liability of corporation on 
negotiable paper) in Bank of Auburn v. 
Putnam, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 83 ; Thomp- 
son v. Tioga R. R. Co.. 36 Barb. 79 ; Bank 
of N. Y. v. B'k of Ohio, 29 2T. Y. 630; 



First Nat. B'k of Angelica v. Hall, 44 JT. Y. 
395. Explained in Farmers' & Merchants' 
B'k v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 5 Bosw. 
289. 

Bank of Geneva v. Hotchkiss, 5 How. Pr. 
478. See, to same effect (Beginning of time 
limited to take appeal to Court of Appeals), 
Wells «. Danforth, 7 How. Pr. 197. 

v. Howlctt, 4 Wend. 328 : si c, 10 K Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 626, with brief note. 
Followed (Notice of dishonor sent by mail) 
with Downer v. Remer, 21 Id. 10; s. c, 23 
Id. 620; Reid v. Payne, 16 Johns. 218; 
s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 311, in Hazelton Coal Co. 
i). Ryerson, 1 Spencer (JV! J.) 129; s. c, 40 
Am. Bee. 217, with note. 

. v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. 81; s. c, 20 / 

How. Pr. 18. 'Rev'd in 33 K Y- 160. ' 
Decision in 33 iV. Y. followed (Appeal- 
ability of order allowing bail to surrender, 
principal) in Hall v. Emmons, 8 Abb. Pr. 
N. 8. 451. , 

Bank of Havana v. Magee, 20 K Y. 355/ 
Followed (Amendment of misnomer) in 
Traver v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. (jt. 
App. Dec. 422, 424. Explained and applied 
in Merriain v. AYolcott, 61 How. Pr. 3/7, 
394. See cases cited in Abb. Tr. JEv.hl, 
n. 3 ; also N. Y., &c. Milk Pan Co/ v. 
Remington's Agric. Works, 25 Hun, 475, 
477, and (dissenting opinion) 481. Followed 
(Private banker not a corporation) in Ilallett 
v. Harrower, 33 Barb. 537, 542. / 

y. Wickham, 7 Abb. Pr. 134; s. c, 16 

How. Pr. 97. Aff d as Bank of Havana v. 

Mag-ee, 20 W. Y. 355. Decision in 7 Abb. Pr. 
collated (Pleadings in actions by or/against 
corporations), with other cases, ir/ Throop 
Justice's Man. 2 ed. 289. See Code Cits. 
Pro. 1881, § 1775, n. 

Bank of Ithaca v. Bean, 1 Code R. 133. 
Overruled (Stockholder of bank as witness) 
in Montgomery Co. Bank v. Maroh, 11 
Barb. 651. 

Bank of Kinderhook v. Gifford, 40 Barb. 
659. Applied (Amendment of answer) in 
Barnett v. Meyer, 10 Hun, 109,|ll0. Ap- 
proved (All defenses to be equally favored) 
in Union National Bank of Troy's. Bassett, 
3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 359. 

Bank of Lansingluirgli v. Craiy, 1 Barb. 
542. See Milliman v. Neher ;, Phillips v. 
Cook. Cited and Whipple v. Foote, 2 Johns. 
418; Stewarts. Doughty, 9 Id. 108; Frear 
«. Hardenburgh, 5 Id. 276; Austin v. 
Sawyer; 9 Cow. 39, disting'd (Sale, &c. of 
growing crops, &c.) in Owens v. Lewis, 46 
Ind. 488; s. c, 15 Am. R. 295, 301, 314, 
315, which also cited Green v. Armstrong, 
1 Den. 550; Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. 
613; Pierrepont v. Barnard, 5 Barb. 371; 6 
N. Y. 279; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 117; 
Silvernail v. Cole, 12 Barb. 685; Bennett®. 
Scutt, 18 Id. 347; Killmoie «. Llowlett, 48 
K Y. 569. Said in 4.6 Am. Dec. 714, »., to 
have been superseded as to validity of mort- 
gage of future crops. 

T. McKie, 7 How. Pr. 360. Aff d in 



BANK. 



41 



Niles v. Vanderzee, 14 Id. 547. See N. Y. 

6 New Haven R. E. Co. v. Schuyler. 
Denied (Counter affidavits upon motion to 
vacate attachment) in Houghton v. Ault, 
16 How. Pr. 78. 

Bank of Lyons v. Demmon, Bill & D. Supp. 
398. Disting'd (Return of securities given 
for capital stock) in Tuckerman v. Brown, 
1 1 Abb. Pr. 389, 396. 

Bank of Michigan t. Ely, 17 Wend. 508. 
Approved (Fraud, not to be presumed) in 
Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 457. Commented 
upon (Acceptance of bill of exchange) in 
Bige. on B. & N. 2 ed. 53. 

v. Jessup, 19 Wend. 10. See Ackerman 

v. Finch. Cited as authority (Security for 
costs — when given in time) in Parke v. 
Goodwin, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 58. 

v. Williams, 5 Wenif. 478. Aff d in 

7 Id. 539. See Dutchess Cotton Manu- 
factory v. Davis ; Bank of Utica v. Smal- 
lcy. Decision in 5 Wend, followed (Allega- 
tions of corporate existence) with Jack- 
son v. Plumbe, 8 Johns. 378; Bank of 
Auburn v. Weed, 19 Id. 300; Dutchess 
Cotton Manuf'y v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238; 
s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 459; and Farmers' & 
Mechanics' B'k «. Rayner, 2 Hall, 19, in 
Lewis v. B'k of Kentucky, 12 Ohio, 132 ; 
s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 469, with note. 

Bank of Monroe, Matter of, 7 Sill, 177; 
s. c, 42 Am. Bee. 61, with note. Questioned 
(Affidavit by attorney in judgment) in 
People v. Ransom, % N. Y. 490. 

Bank of Monroe v. Culver, 2 Hill, 531. 
See Lawrence v. Barker; Merrill v. Ithaqa & 
Oswego R. R. Co. Followed (Books of 
account in evidence) in Burke u. Wolfe, 38 
Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 263, 272. Reviewed 
■with Merrill ». Ithaca & Oswego R. R. Co., 
16 Wend. 600; s. c, 30 Am. Bee. 130; 
Brewster v. Doane, 2 Hill, 537, in Vinal v. 
Gilman, 21 W. Va. 301; s. c, 45 Am. E. 
562. Disting'd in Derham n. Lee, 47 Super. 
Ct. (J.&S.) 174, 183; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 334. 

v. Schermerhorn, Clarke, 297. Rev'd 

in 9 Paige, 372. See Osborn v. Hcyer. 

v. Widner, 11 Paige, 529. Compare 

(Effect of statute of arbitration) Bulson v. 
Lohnes, 29 N. Y. 2»1. 

Bank of Newbnrgh v. Seymour, 14 Johns. 
219 ; Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cow. 39. 
Approved (Amendment of judgment) in 
Shirley v. Phillips, 17 III. 471. Disting'd 
in Grant v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 509, 511. 

Bank of New Orleans v. Matthews, 49 K Y. 
12. Cited (Validity of partnership dealings 
with alien enemies) in Whart. Com. onAg. 
16, 11. 

Bank of N. T. v. Bank of Ohio, 36 Barb. 
332. Rev'd in Ct. of App., April, 1863, on 
the ground that the question of intention 
should have been left to the jury. See Nj 
Y. African Society v. Varick. 

v. , 29 N. Y. 619. See N. Y. African 

Society v. Varick. Disting'd (Liability on 
note made by agent or trustee) in Storrs v. 
Flint, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 498, 517. 



y. Livingston, 2 Johns. Cas. 409 ; 

Cumpston ?). McNair, 1 Wend. 457. Disting'd 
(Necessity of demand and notice to give 
effect to guaranty) in Lane v. Levillian, 4 
Ark. 76 ; s. c, 37 Am. Bee. 769, 77 1 . See also 
Read v. Cutts, 7 Oreenl. (Me.) 186; s. c, 
22 Am. Bee. 184, with note. 

v. Vanderhorst, 32 JST. Y. 553. Affg 1 

Rolt. 211. See Bank of State of N. Y. v. 
Vanderhorst. Followed (Taking note as 
collateral security) in Moody v. Andrews, 
39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 3u2, 305. Fol- 
lowed (Holder for value) in Weaver v. Bar- 
den, 49 K Y. 286. Cited (Continuance of 
authority of agent of firm after dissolution) 
in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 97, 104. Cited 
(Dissolution of partnership by death) in 
Story on Partn. § 3 1 9, n. 

Bank of Niagara, Matter of, 6 Paige, 216. 
Followed (Executors' commissions) in Betts 
«. Betts, 4 Abb. N. C. 317, 342. 

v. McCracken, 18 Johns. 493; Haxtun 

v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 1. Disapproved (Proof 
of demand of payment of note payable on 
demand) in Thurston ». ,Wolfborough B'k, 
18 N. H. 391 ; s. c, 45 Am. Bee. 382, as con- 
flicting with Jefferson County B'k v. Chap- 
man, 19 Johns. 323. See Hendricks «. 
Judah, below. 

Bank of Ogdensbnrgh v. Arnold, 5 Pai. 40; 
Lafsky v. Maujer, 3 Sand/. Oh. 69 ; Quincj' 
v. Cheeseman, 4 Id. 405. Applied (Receiver 
in foreclosure) in Hollenbeck v. Donnell, 94 
N. Y. 342. Compare Syracuse City Bank 
v. Tallman, 31 Barb. 202, 209. 

Bank of Orange Co. v. Brown, 3 Wend. 158. 
Followed (Nature of action against carrier) 
in Wood v. Milwaukee & St. Paul TVy Co., 
32 Wis. 39S. Approved and applied (Joinder 
of defendants in actions against carriers) in 
Jones v. Pitcher, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 135; 
s. c, 24 Am. Bee. 706, 729. 

v. Haight, 14 Wend. 83. Discussed 

(Statute of Limitations — judicial process) in 
Ahgell on Lim. § 320, 6 ed. 

Bank of Orleans v. Barry, 1 Ben. 116; 
Loomis v. Mowry, 8 Hun, 311: Catlin o. 
Hausen, 1 Bner, 323; Vallet v. Parker, 6 
Wend. 615; Morton v. Rcgers, 14 Wend.~576; 
Rogers v. Morton, 12 Id. 484; Hendricks 
d. Judah, 1 Johns. 319. Collated (Pre- 
sumption as to regularity of negotiable 
paper) in 29 Alb. L. J. 145. 

v. Flagg, 3 Barb. Gh. 316. Criticised 

(Who bound by judgment of foreclosure) 
in Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 137. 

v. Merrill, 2 Hill, 295. Included 

(Note — promise to pay) in 1 Ames Cases on 
B. & A. 20. 

v. Smith, 3 Hill, 560, though said in 7 

Hill, 595, to have been reversed, is yet said 
to have the force of a precedent, as the 
reversal was upon points raised by the 
pleadings and not appearing upon the bill of 
exceptions. Reported in 15 N~. Y. Com. L. 
law. Ed. 684, with brief note. Discussed 
(Liability of bank for note deposited for 
collection) 3 Kent Com. 93, n. d. Cited as 



42 



BANK. 



establishing the doctrine laid down in 
Exchange Nat. B'k v. Third Nat. B'k, 112 
U. S. 276, 282. Disapproved in Mont- 
gomery County Bank v. Albany City Bank, 
* 7 If. Y. 459 ; Reeves v. State Bank, 8 Ohio 
(If. S.) 465; also in 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 273. 

Bank of Pouglikeepsie v. Hasbrouck, 6 
If. 7. 216. Disting'd (Effect of payment of 
note by executor, where payee does not 
surrender it) in Matter of Benedict, 13 
Abb. If. 0. 67. Explained (Jurisdiction 
of surrogate as to disputed claims) as not 
overruling doctrine in Magee «. Vedder, 6 
Barb. 352 ; Wilson d. Baptist Ed. Society of 
N. Y., 10 Id. 308; Disosway v. Bank of 
Washington, 24 Id. 60 ; Curtis «. Stillwell, 
32 Id. 354; Andrews v. Wallege, 17 How. 
Pr. 263, and Magee v. Vedder, followed in 
Tuckers. Nucker, 4 Keyes, 136. 

--— v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 472. Subsequent 
proceeding in 5 Hill, 461. See ' Slee v. 
Bloom. Approved (Nature of rights of 

' creditor of corporation against stock- 
holders) in Weeks v. Love, 50 K 7. 560. 
Reviewed in Jones v. Jarman, 34 Ark. 323. 
Followed (Dissolution of corporation) in 
Bruce v. Piatt, 80 If. 7. 473: Relied on 
(Set-off by stockholder in proceedings by 
Creditor of corporation) in Webber v. 
Leighton, 8 Mo. App. 50,5, 507. Discussed 
(Liability of members of private corporation) 
In Angell & A. on Corp. § 625, 11 ed. 
With decision in 5 Hill, see (Composition — 
joint debtors) Code Civ. Pro. 1881. § 1942, n. 

Bank of Rochester v. Bowen, 7 Wend. 158. 
Disting'd (Liability on firm note issued by 
one partner) in Osgood v. Glover, 7 Daly, 
367, 371. Cited with other cases in 11 
Am. L. Reg. If. S. 543. 

V. Emerson, 10 Paige, 115. Followed 

(Confirmation of referee's report) in Bache 
i>. Doscher, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150, 
156. 

— — v. Gould, 9 Wend. 279. Disting'd 
(Sufficiency of notice of non-payment of 
note) in .Gilbert v. Dennis, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 
395; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 329, 337. 

v. Gray, 2 Hill, 227. Doubted (Certi- 
ficate of notary) in Bank of Vergennes v. 
Cameron, 7 Barb. 143. See Hallidav v. 
McDougall, 20 .Wend. 81, 87. Cited in 
Richard v. Boiler, 6 Daly, 460, 462. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 923, n. 

v. Jones, 4 If. 7. 497; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 

290, with hote containing numerous cita- 
tions. See Dows v. Greene. Followed 
(Delivery of bill of lading) in Cayuga 
County Nat. B'k v. Daniels, 47 N. 7. 031; 
First Nat. B'k of Cincinnati v. Kelly, 57 
If. 7. 34, 37; Rawls v. Deshler, 4 Abli. Ct. 
App. Dec. 12, 18; Indiana Nat. B'k v. Col- 
gate, 4 Daly, 49; Farmers' and Mechanics' 
Nat. B'k ■». Logan, 74 If. 7. 579; City 
Bank v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 
44 N. 7. 186. Explained in Bailey v. 
Hudson Rivet R. R. Co., 49 If. 7.70; Ceas 
'0. Bramley, 18 Hun, 187. Applied in Manu- 
facturers', &c. B'k of Buffalo v. Farmers', Ac. 



Nat. B'k of Buffalo, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
401 ; Armour v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 65 
If. 7. 120. Followed in First Nat. B'k' of 
Green Bay v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219; s. c, 
15 Am. £. 92, 96. Followed in Hoi brook 
v. Wight, 24 Wend. 169; Grosvenor v! 
Phillips, 2 Hill, 147; Bailey v. Hudson 
River R. R. Co., 49 If. 7. 70; Krudler v. 
Ellison, 47 Id. 36 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 402. 
Disting'd in Hodges v. Kimball, 49 Iowa, 
477; s. c, 31 Am. R. 158, 162. Followed 
(What is bill of lading) in Dows v. Greene, 
32 Barb. 502. Explained (Sales — reserva- 
tion of jus disponendi) in 1 Benj. on 
Sales, § 584 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Col- 
lated (Necessity of actual possession in 
order to create factor's lien) with Winter v. 
Colt, 7 If. 7. 288, and other cases, in 58 
Am. Dec. 168, n. 

v. Monteath. 1 Den. 402; s. c, 43 

Am. Dec. 681, with note. See Crocker v. 
Coldwell. Cited (Paper of firm using an 
individual name) with other cases, fnr 11 
Am. L. Reg. If. S. 541. Explained with 
Oliphant v. Mathews, 16 Barb. 608, as not 
opposed to rule in Yorkshire B'k'g Co. 
v. Beatson (Ct. of App., Aug., 1880), 28 
Weekly Rep. 883. Approved in Wright «. 
Hooker, 10 If. 7. 51. 

Bank of Rome v. Curtiss. See Patterson v. 
Westervclt. 

v. Mott, 17 Wend. 554. See Butler v. 

King; Lane v. Hitchcock. Applied with 
Strong v. Campbell, 11 Barb. 135, (Officer- 
to whom responsible) in Bennett D.Whitney, 
94 If. 7. 302. 

v. Village of Rome, 27 Barb. 65. Aft'd 

in 19 N~. Y. 20. Prior decision in 18 
If. 7. 38. See Gould v. Town of Sterling ; 
Starin v. Town of Genoa. Decision in 18 
If. 7. adhered to (Town bonding) in 
Clarke ». City of Rochester, 28 N. 7. 
605, 633. Explained and re-aff'd iu 
Williams v. Town of Duanesburgh, 66 
If. 7. 129. Cited and compared in 
Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806, 812. 
Collated, with other cases, in Town of 
Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 If. 7. 177. 
Followed with Starin «. Town of Genoa, 23 
Id. 439 ; Clarke v. City of Rochester, 82 Id. 
605; People v. Mitchell, 35 Id. 551, in 
Commissioners of Leavenworth County v. 
Miller, 7 Earn. 479; s. c, 12 Am. R. 425, 
444. Disting'd in People, ex rel. Dunkirk, 
Warren, &c. R. R. Co. v. Batchellov, 53 
If. 7. 128, 138. Followed in People v. 
Hulbert, 59 Barb. 446. Followed (Con- 
stitutionality of act of April 16, 1852) in 
Gould v. Town of Venice, 29 Barb. 442. 
followed (Control of power of taxation by 
municipal corporation) in Matter ot Living- 
ston, 82 N. 7. 622. Applied in People v. 
Mitchell, 45 Barb. 211. Criticised and 
disting'd in Sweet v. Hulbert, 51 Barb. 
319. Applied in Davidson i: Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 27 How. Pr. 352; Townsend v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 10 Dun, 364. Followed 
(Committing power to make local regula- 



BANK. 



43 



tions to people of locality) in Village of 
Gloversville v. Howell, 7 Hun. 348. Applied 
in Bank of Chenango » Brown, 26 N. Y. 
471. Applied (Delegation of legislative 
power) in Currier v. West Side Elev. Pat. 
Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 487, 494. Decis- 
ion in 19 N. Y. explained (Town bonding) 
in Starin v. Town of Genoa, 23 A 7 ! Y. 452. 
Disting'd in Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 
84 A 7 ! Y. 532, 540. Cited and compared in 
Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806, 812. 
Adhered to in People «. Mead, £4 N. Y. 
129. Disting'd in dissenting opinion of 
Allen, J., in People exrel. Martin v. Brown, 
55 N. Y. 180, 199. 

Bank of Rutland v. Buck, 5 Wend. 66. See 
Bank of Chenango v. Hyde ; Grandin ■». 
Le Roy. Explained and followed (Collat- 
eral security) in Bank of State of N. Y. 
•o. Vanderhorst, 32 N. Y. 553. Followed 
(Liability of surety on promissory note) 
with Utica B'k «. Ganson, 10 Wend. 314, in 
Smitlm. Moberly, 10 B. Monr. (Ky.) 266; 
s. c, 52 Am. Dee. 543, with note. 

Bank of St. Albans v. Gilliland, 23 Wend. 
311. See Spear v. Myers. Collated (Con- 
sideration of negotiable paper) with other 
cases in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos., 5 ed. 
423. Collated (Bona fide holder of bill or 
note) with other cases, in 2 Id. 5 ed. 240. 
Disting'd in Harger v. Worrall, 69 A 7 ! Y. 
373 ; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 K Y. 
218. Followed in Starin v. Kelly, 36 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 366, 370. 

Bank of Salina v. Abbot, 3 Den. 181. Dis- 
ting'd and questioned (Assignment of judg- 
ment to indorser) in Corey v. White, 3 Barb. 
12. 

v. Alvord, 31 N. Y. 473. See Pratt v. 

Short. Disting'd I Usury) in Moore v. 
Bogart, 19 Hun, 227. 

v. Babcock, 21 Wend. 499. See Bristol 

v. Spraguc; Coddington v. Bay. Included 
(Bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in 1 
Ames Cases on B. & N. 637. Disting'd in 
Stewart v. Small, 2 Barb. 565 ; Prentiss v. 
Graves, 33 Barb. 626. Followed in Youngs 
v. Lee, 18 Barb. 192; which was aff'd in 
12 A 7 ". Y. 555, which see; Mohawk B"k 
v. Corey, 1 Hill, 518; White v. Spring- 
field B'k, 3 Sand/. 224; Bank of San- 
dusky ii. Scoville, 24 Wend. 115. Ex- 
plained ir. Clark v. Ely, 2 Sand/. Ch. 
170. Reviewed and explained in Farrington 
e. Frankfort B'k, 24 Barb. 564; 31 Id. 190; 
Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 98. Applied 
in Mead t. Merchants' B'k of Albany, 25 
JV. Y. 149; Brown v. Leavitt, 31 A 7 : 
Y. 113. Ke-affd in Pratt v. Coman, 37 
.A 7 ! Y. 442 ; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 
N. Y. 223. Reviewed with Bank of San- 
dusky e. Scoville, 24 Wend. 115; Stalker v. 
McDonald, 6 Hill, 93; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 
389, with note, in Blanehard v. Stevens, 3 
Cush. (Mass.) 1G2; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 723, 
with note. Disting'd (Merger of debt in 
note) in Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker 76 A 7 ". 
Y. 521, 526. 



t. Henry, 1 Hill, 555. Rev'd in 5 Id. 

523. Another decision in 2 Den. 155; aff'd 
in 3 Id. 593 ; 1 A 7 ! Y. 83. See People v. 
Mather. Decision in 2 Den. 155, com- 
mented on (Questions tending to disgrace 
witness) in 1 Best on Ev. § 130 n. a, et 
seq. Wood's Ed. 

Bank of Sandusky t. Scoville, 24 Wend. 
115. See Bank of Salina ■». Babcock ; Bristol 
■b. Spraguc; Coddington v. Bay. Included 
(Bona fide holder of negotiable paper) in 1 
Ames Cases on B. & N. 639. Followed in 
Youngs v. Lee, 18 Barb. 192 ; which was afl'd 
in 12 X. Y. 553, which see; White v, Spring- 
field B'k, 3 Sand/. 224. Applied in Purchase 
v. Mattison, 3 Bosw. 312; Farmers' B'k v. 
Watson, 82 A 7 ! Y. 584. Disting'd in Stewart 
v. Small, 2 Barb. 566 ; Prentiss ». Graves, 33 
Barb. 626; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 
N. Y. 226. Reviewed and explained in Far- 
rington ». Frankfort B'k, 24 Barb. 564; 31 
Barb. 190; Stalkers. McDonald, 6 Hill, 98. 
Applied in Brown v. Leavitt, 31 N. Y. 113. 
Explained in Clark v. Ely, 2 Sand/., Ch. 
170. 

Bank of Silver Creek v. Talcott, 22 Barb. 
550. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of 
creditors — designation of debts to be paid) 
in Burrill on Assign. § 313, 4 ed. 

Bank of State of Georgia v. Lewin, 45 
Barb. 340. Cited as authority (Usury- 
law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs B'k ». 
Low, 6 Abb. K C. 76, 89 ? which was afl'd 
in 81 A 7 ! Y. 566, which see. Compared in 
First Nat. B'k of N. Y. •». Morris, 1 Hun, 
680, 682; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 182. 
Disting'd in Dickinson v. Edwards, 77 A 7 ! Y. 
573, 580. 

Bank of State of Indiana v. Bug-bee, 1 
Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 86. Cited (Limitations 
on authority of broker) in Whart. Com. on 
Ag. § 712. 

Bank of State of N. Y. v. Vanderhorst, 1 
Robt.ZU. Aft" d in 32 N. Y. 553. Latter 
decision followed (Bona fide character of one 
taking note, &c. as collateral security) in 
Brookman v. Metcalf, 32 N. Y. 591. 

Bank of Syracuse v. Hollister, 17 N. Y. 
46. Explained (Presentment of note for 
payment) in 2 Greenl. on Ea. 14 ed. § 178, 
n. b. 

Bank of Troy v. Topping. 9 Wend. 273. 
Subsequent decision in 13 Wend. 557. 
Decision in 9 Wend, reviewed and explained 
(Promissory nite of executor or administra- 
tor) in McGrath «. Barnes, 13 S. C. 328; 
s. c, 36 Am. Ii. 6S7, 693. Decision in 13 
Wend, followed (Presumption of considera- 
tion) in Paine u. Noelkc, 43 Super. Ct. (J. 
'& S.) 176, 184. 

Bank of U. S. v. Davis, 2 Hill, 451, 463. 
Sec Hawley ». Keelcr ; N. Y. & New Haven 
11. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Followed (Notice to 
director or other agent of corporation) in 
Holdcn v. N.. Y. & Erie B'k, ~72 A 7 ". T. 
295; Lothian v. Wood, 55 Cal. 162. 
Disting'd in Westfield B'k v. Covnen, 37 
N. Y. 323. Examined and explained in 17 



a 



J3ANK. 



Am. Law Rev. 849, 871. Cited in Whart. 
Com. on Ag. % 673. Followed (Notice to 
agent) in Bank of Savings v. Frank, 56 
How. Pr. 414. Doubted with Westfield B'k 
r. Cornell, 37 K Y. 320; Jackson v. Sharp, 
9 Johns. 163; in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 178. 
Applied (Liability for fraudulent act of 
agent) in N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. 
Schuyler, 38 Barb. 551; Sharp v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y., 40 Barb. 272; Durst v. Burton, 
2 Lans. 143. Disting'd (Recovery on bill or 
note discounted in violation of law) in At- 
lantic State B'k v. Savery, 82 2f. Y. 306; 
Cuyler v. Sanford, 13 Barb. 339. Applied 
(Defense to action on note) in Holbrook v. 
Wilson, 4 Bosw. 79. Followed (Notice to 
indorser) in Clarke v. Ward, 4 Buer, 208. 

■ v. Honsmnn, 6 Pai. 635; Hildreth o. 

Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. 43. Approved and 
applied (Inadmissibility of parol evidence of 
blood and affection to support deed reciting 
valuable consideration) in Burrage» Beards- 
ley, 16 Ohio, 438; s. c, 47 Am. Bee. 3S2. 
Compare 30 Am. Bee. 116, n. See also Hil- 
dreth v. Sands. 

T. Jenkins. See Cable v. Cooper. 

Bank of Utica v. Bender, 21 Wend. 643; 
s. c, 34 Am. Bee. 281, with note, where 

' it is said to have been frequently refer- 
red to as authority. See Bank of Utica v. 
Phillips. Included (Sufficiency of notice to 
charge indorser) in Bigel. on B. & N~. 2 ed. 
329; Bed/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Ex. 
410. Approved in Beale v. Parish, 20 AT. Y. 
407. Explained and followed in Requa v. 
Collins, 51 W. Y. 144, 148. 

. v. Childs, 6 Cow. 238. Compare 

(Limitations in action by principal against 
agent) Code Civ. Pro. § 407. 

v. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 399; s. c, 27 

Am. Bee. 72, with note, wherein it is said 
to havebeeu frequently followed in N. Y., as 
to what property of a bank is subject to 
taxation. 

Y. Davidson, 5 Wend. 588. Explained 

and followed (Notice sufficient to charge 
indorser) in Requa v. Collins, 51 A 7 ". Y. 144, 
148. 

v. Finch, 3 Barb. Ch. 293; s. c, 49 

Am. Bee. 175. with note, collecting cita- 
tions. See Brinkerhoff v. Marvin; Towns- 
end v. Stone Dressing Co. Questioned 
(Mortgage to secure future advances) in 
Monnot v. Ibert, 33 Barb. 24, 27. 

— — v. Hillard, 5 Cow. 153. Cited (What 
must appear to enable the production of 
papers to be compelled) in 1 Whart. Com. 
on Ev. % S17. Subsequent decisions in 5 
Cow. 419; 6 Id. 62. Decisions in 5 Cow. 
15^-^^419; 6 'Cow. 62, disting'd (Com- 
pelling agent to' produce principals' papers) 
in > Robbins «. Davis, 1 Blatchf. 238, 240. 
Decisions in 5 Cow. 153 ; Id. >419, approved 
in Wertheimcr v. Continental Railway & 
Trust Co. (IT. S. Circ. Ct., S. B. N. Y., 
leVy, 1883), 15 Reporter, 294, as conceding 
power to compel production of books by 
officer of corporation where it is not a party, 



La Farge v. La Farge Fire Ins. Co., liLTov). 
Pr. 26, and other N. Y. cases being disap- 
proved in so far as they make a contrary ap- 
plication of the doctrine of these decisions. 
Decision in 5 Cow. 419, quoted and explained 
(Process, pleadings, &c. in case of corpor-' 
ations) in Angell &A. on Corp. § 682, 11 ed. 

v. Ives, 17 Wend. 501. Disapproved 

and questioned (Usurious agreement for 
extension of time) in VYies v. Sultzer, 1 
City Ct. 3. 

— v. McKinster. See Smedes v. Bank of 
Utica. 

— v. Magher, 18 Johns. 314. Collated 
(Signature by agent of corporate and official 
documents) with other cases, in 1 Hare & 
W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 763. 

— v. Merserean, 3 Barb. Ch. 528; s. c, 
49 Am. Bee. 189, with note, wherein it 
is said to have been frequently approved 
and followed. See Varick v. Tallman. 
Applied (Effect of covenant of warranty 
as estoppel) in Tefft v. Munson, 57 A 7 ". 
Y. 99. Followed in Doe v. Dowdall, 3 
Houst. {Bel.) 369; s. c, 11 Am. R. 757, 
765. Applied (Form of comptroller's tax 
deed) in dissenting opinion of Cady, J., in 
Leggctt v. Rogers, 9 Barb. 414. Applied 
(Remedy for imperfect tax deed) in Mc- 
Cready v. Sexton, 29 Iowa, 356; s. c, 4 
Am. R. 214, 222. Disting'd (Production of 
documents) in Peck v. Williams, 13 Abb. 
Pr. 68. Cited as authority (Communica- 
tions by two or more clients jointly) in 
Whiting v. Barney, 38 Barb. 397. Disting'd 
(Privileged communication) in Sanford v. 
Sanford, 61 Barb. 305 ; Graham v. People, 
63 Barb. 484. Cited as authority in Pierson 
■b. People, 18 Run, 249. Followed in 
Edingtou ». Mut. Life Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 11. 
Re-aff'd in Williams v. Fitch, 18 A 7 ". Y. 551. 
Followed (Who are bound by or may take 
advantage of estoppel) in Mickles v. Towns- 
end, 18 JST. Y. 583. 

v. Phillips. 3 Wend. 408. Included 

(Notice of protest) in 2 Ames Cases on B. 

6 A 7 ". 401. Applied in Requa v. Collins, 51^ 
A 7 ". Y. 144, 147. Applied with Gawtry v. 
Doane, 51 K Y. 84; Bank of Utica v. 
Bender, 21 Wend. 643, in Saco Nafl B'k 
v. Sanborn, 63 Me. 340 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 224. 
Approved in Marviuc v. Hymers, 12 iV. Y. 
223. 

v. Smalley. 2 Cow. 770. Aft'd in 

8 Id. 398, without opinion. Decision in 
2 Cow. reported in 14 Am. Bee. 526, 
with note, wherein it is referred to as 
settling the law in N. Y. Also reported in 

7 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 960, with brief 
note, on transfer of stock. See Barker, 
Matter of ; Jackson v. Plumbe; U. S. B'k », 
Haskins. Cited as authority (Regulation by 
corporation of transfer of stock) in Mann v. 
Currie, 2 Barb. 299; Worrall v. Judson, 5 
Barb. 210; N. Y. & N. II. R. R. Co. v. 
Schuyler, 38 Barb. 540; Comeau v. Guild 
Farm Oil Co., 3 Baly, 220. Cited as settled 
law in Bank of Attica «. Man'f. & Traders' 



BANK— BARBEK. 



45 



B'k, 20 N. Y. 511. Recognized as author- 
ity with Mechanics' Bank v. N. Y. & New 
Haven R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 624 ; N. Y. & 
New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 Id. 
80 ; Gilbert ?>. Manchester Iron Man'f'g Co., 

11 Wend. 528; Kortright v. Buffalo Com- 
mercial Bank, 20 Wend. 91, in Baltimore 
City Passenger R'y Co, v. Sewell, 35 ltd. 
238; s. c, 6 Am. R. 402. Disapproved 
(Effect of plea of general issue, in action "by 
corporation) the cases of Jackson «. Plumbe, 
8 Johns. 378 ; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 526 ; Bank 
of Auburn t. Weed, 19 Johns. 300; Bill «. 
Fourth Great Western Turnpike Road, 14 
Id. 416; Bank of Michigan v. Williams, 5 
Wend. 482 ; 7 Id. 541 ; U. S. B'k v. Stearns, 
15 Id. 314 being followed, and Dutchess 
Cotton Manufactory v. Davis, 14 Johns. 245 ; 
s. c. 7 Am. Dec. 459 being disting'd in 
Phoenix B'k of N. Y. v. Curtis, 14 Conn. 
437; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 492. Followed 
(Averring corporate existence) in Bank of 
Waterville a. Beltser, 13 How. Pr. 272. 
Followed (Witness made competent by trans- 
fer of stock) in Utica Ins. Co. o. Cadwell, 3 

Wend. 300; Gilbert v. Manchester Iron 
Manf. Co., 11 Wend. 629. Applied in Cates 
v. Wacters' Heirs, 2 Hill (S. C.) Law, 442, 
which was cited in Stall v. Catskill B'k, 18 
Wend. 473. 

v. Smith, 18 Johns. 230. Compare 

(Presentment and demand) Salt Springs 
Nat. B'k i: Burton, 58 If. Y. 430, 435. 

v. Wagers 2 Cow. 712. Afifd. in 8 Id. 398. 

Opinion of Savage, J., compared (Discount 
by bank, when usurious) in 3 Pars, on Cont. 
115. n. p. Explained in Bank of Utica v. 
Phillips, 3 Wend. 408 ; Marvine v. Hymers, 

12 If. Y. 223. Applied (Usury— intent) in 
Fiedler v. Darrin, 50 IT. Y. 437. 

Bank of Vergeuiies v. Cameron. 7 Barb. 
143. Quoted and explained (Power of 
partners after dissolution of partnership) in 
1 Collyer on Partn. % 107, n. 1, Wood's 
Am. ed. Disting'd (Rights of holder of 
paper indorsed in partnership name) in 
Grim v. Starkweather, 88 If. Y. 339. 

v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91. Applied (Pre- 
sumption of authority of cashier) in Chemical 
Nat. B'k v. Kohner, 85 If. Y. 189, 193; 
Thatcher v. B'k of State of N. Y., 5 
Sandf. 130. Applied (Validity of redemp- 
tion proceedings) in Hall v. Fisher, 9 
Barb. 25; People v. Ransom, 4 Den. 148. 
Followed in Chautauque Co. B'k v. Risley, 
4 Den. 484. Disting'd in People v. Rath- 
bun, 15 If. Y. 531. Cited as authority 
(Right of purchaser at sheriff's sale to release 
his interest) in Miller v. Lewis, 4 If. Y. 560. 

Bank of Watertown v. Assessors of Water- 
town. Report in 25 Wend. 686, said in 2 
Mill, 353,, not to contain opinion of court, 
the C. J. and Cowen, J., being said to have 
concurred in that of Buonson, J., in People 
ex rel. Bank of Watertown v. Assessors of 
Watertown, 1 Bill, G16. 

Bank of Waterville y. Beltser, 13 How. Pr. 
270. Approved (Averment or proof of 



existence by corporation plaintiff) in La 
Fayette Ins. Co. ®. Rogers, 30 Barb. 491, 
492. 

Banker v. Banker, 4 Hun, 259. Aff d in 63 
If. Y. 409, on other points. See Lewis 
v. Jones. Decision in 63 If. Y. quoted 
(Personal disabilities of testators) in 1 
Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 106, n. 

Banks T. Phelan, 4 Barb. 80, 89. Compared 
(Bequest to unincorporated society) 4 
Am. L. Reg. N. S. 274. 

v. Walker, 3 Sandf. Ch. 344. Aff'd in 

3 Barb. Ch. 438. Latter overruled, in Mc- 
Carthy v. Marsh, 5 If. Y. 263. See Eagle 
Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent 

T. Wilkes, 2 Sandf. Ch. 99. See Bates 

v. Underhill. Applied (Responsibility for 
co-trustee's default) to executor in Lacey v. 
Davis, 5 Red/. 301, 305. See cases collected 
in 15 Am. L. Rev. 175. 

Banlec v. N. Y & Harlem R. R. Co., 48 
How. Pr. 399; s. c, as Baulec «. N. Y. & 
Harlem R. R. Co., 59 If. Y. 356; 17 Am. 
R. 325; aff'g in effect 12 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 310; 
s. o., 5 Lans. 436, and 62 Barb. 623. 

Banta, Matter of, 60 If. Y. 165. Disting'd 
in People ex rel. Ross v. City of Brooklyn, 
69 Id. 605, as considering other provisions 
of L. 1859, c. 213, not repugnant to those 
L. 1861, c. 169. 

Banta t. Garnio, 1 Sandf. Ch. 383. See Sand- 
ford v. McLean. Disting'd (Subrogation to 
prior mortgage) in Snelling v. Mclntyre, 6 
Abb. If. C. 469, 472. 

Baptist Church v. Bigelow. 16 Wend. 28. 
Followed (Nature of perpetual lease of pew) 
in St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 34 Barb. 
16, 18. 

v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 28 If. Y. 

153. Applied (Necessary elements in con- 
tract of insurance) in Stockton v. Fireman's 
Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 577. 

v. Wetherell, 3 Paige, 296, 301; s. c, 

24 Am. Dec. 223. Quoted (Power over 
religious corporations) in Cooley on Const. 
Lim. 5 ed. 577, n. Followed with Lawyer 
v. Cipperly, 7 Paige, 281 ; Miller v. Gable, 2 
Den. 492; Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. 
64; Dieffendorf v. Reformed Calvinist. 
Church, 20 Johns. 12, in Chase v. Cheney, 
58 III. 509; s. c, 11 Am. R. 95, 104. 
Disting'd in Grimes v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 
198; s. c, 9 Am. R. 690, 700. 

Barber v. Case, 12 How. Pr. 351. Over- 
ruled (Examination of parties on a motion) 
in Meyer v. Lent, 7 Abb. Pr. 225. 

T. Crossett, 6 How. Pr. 45. Adopted as 

the opinion of the court at Gen. T. (Right 
of officer to double costs) in Saratoga & 
Washington R. R. Co. v. McCoy, 8 Id. 526. 
See to the contrary, Nestle ». Jones, 6 
How. Pr. 172. 

v. Harris. 15 Wend. 015. Quoted and 

explained (Effect of recitals in mortgage as 
estoppel) in 3 Washb. R. P. 4 ed. 106. 
Disting'd (Right of husband to incumber 
property held by him and his wife) in 
Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391. Followed 



-46 



BARBER— BACKER. 



(Effect of conveyance, &c. to husband and 
wife and others) in Johnson v. Hart, 6 Watts 
& S. (|Pa.) 319; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 565, 567, 
with note. Cited in Halls. Stephens, 65 Mo. 
670 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 302. Approved (Right 
of husband to control of his wife's estate — 
Estoppel by mortgage) with Jackson v. Mc- 
Connell, 10 Wend. 175; s. c, 32 Am. Dec. 
439, with note, in Wyckoff v. Gardner, I 
Spencer (W. J.) 556 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 389, 
with note. 

v. Hubbard, 3 Code R. 156. Affd in 3 

Id. 169. 

v. Marble, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & 0.) 114. 

Disting'd (Amendments of pleadings) in 
Decker v. Saltsman, 1 Hun, 421, 428 ; 
s. c, 3 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 595. 

T. People, 17 Hun, 366. Compare 

(Examination as evidence) Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 2460. 

V. Rose, 5 Hill, 76. Disting'd (Waiver 

of damages for non-performance) in Mc- 
Cormick v. Penn. Central R. R. Co., 80 
K Y. 362. 

v. Sterling, 68 N. Y. 273. Followed 

(Effect of discharge in bankruptcy, &c.) 
in Hardenbrook «. Colson, 61 How. Pr. 426, 
431. 

v. Winslow, 12 Wend. 102. Followed 

(Effect of recital of jurisdictional facts) in 
Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Eobt. 166, 202. 

Barbour v. Everson, 16 ^465. Pr. 366. Ex- 
plained (Directory provisions in assignment 
act) in Hardman v. Bowen, 5 Abb. Pr. N. 
S. 333, 337; s. c, 39 N. Y. 196. Limited in 
■ Rennie v. Bean, 24 Hun, 123, 127. 

Barclay v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 9 Abb. 
Pr. If. S. 283. Confirmed by further decision 
in 6 Lans. 25, as to which (Action by for- 
eign assignee) compare Mosselman ■». Caen, 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 171. 

v. Talman,4JSaw. 123. Affd 3 Ch. Sent. 

56, on the same grounds and for an additional 
reason that the corporation was a necessary 
party to such an application, and its assign- 
ment did not dissolve it so as to render it un- 
necessary to make it a party. 

v. Wilcox. See Barkley v. Wilcox. 

Bard v. Poole, 12 N'. Y. 495. Approved 
(Suit by party deriving title to chose in 
action from foreign administrator or executor) 
in Petersen v. Chemical Bank, 32 JSf. Y. 21. 

Barger v. Durvin, 22 Barb. 68. Overruled 
(Authority of assignee for creditors to take 
debt out of statute of limitations) in Pickett 
e. King, 34 Barb. 193; which was aff'd as 
Pickett v. Leonard, 34 jV. Y. 178, which see. 

Barhydt v. Valk, 12 Wend. 145; s. c, 27 
Am. Dee. 124, with note. 

Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 K Y. 238. See 
Mygittt v. Washburn ; Weaver v. Devendorf. 
Applied (Jurisdiction of assessors) in Bell v. 
Pierce, 51 K Y. 12, 15, 18 ; Foster v. Van 
Wyck, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 172; Dorn v. 
Backer, 61 Barb. 609. Criticised and limited 
with Swift a City of Poughkeepsie, 37 2V~. 
Y. 51 1, in National Bank of Chemung v. City 
of Elmiva, 53 K Y. 49, 56. Disting'd 



in Palmer v. Lawrence, 6 Lans. 292. Fol- 
lowed in Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, 
37 K Y. 513. Cited as authority (Lia- 
bility for assessing non-resident) in Wade 
v. Matheson, 4 Lans. 163. Criticised as 
correctly decided, but unsatisfactory in 
reasoning (Judicial character of office of 
assessor) in Auditor of State v. Atchison, 
Topeka, &c. R. R., Kan. 500, 508. Ex- 
plained in Cruger v. Dougherty, 43 N. Y. 
122, as not changing strict rule as to 
statutory proceedings to divest property. 

Barker, Matter of, 6 Wend. 509. See Holmes, 
ex parte. Explained (Private corporation — 
admission and election) in Ang\ & A. on 
Corp. § 132, 11 ed. Cited as authority 
with Gilbert *>. Manuf'g Iron Co., 11 Wend. 
627 ; Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 Cow. 
770, 778 ; Kortright v. Commercial Bank of 
Buffalo, 22 Wend. 348, 362; Hoagland v. 
Bell, 36 Barb. 57 (Recording transfers of 
stock) in Hoppin v. Buffum, 9 It. 1. 513; 
s. c, 11 Am. i?.. 291. 

Barker v. Barker, 15 How. Pr. 568. Fol- 
lowed (Contempt — striking out pleading) in 
Walker v. Walker, 82 IT. Y. 260, 264. 

v. Bradley, 42 JV. F. 316. Disting'd and 

criticised (parol evidence to vary considera- 
tion) in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Huh, 198, 
213. Cited with Hope v. Balen, 58 N. Y. 
382 (Parol proof of oral part of mixed con- 
tract) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ho. § 1015. 
Disting'd (Promise to third person) in John- 
son v. Morgan, 6 Daly, 333, 337. 

v. Bucklin, 2 Den. 45 ; s. c, 43 Am. 

Dec. 726, with note, containing citations. 
See Leonard v. Vredenbergh; Mallory v. 
Gillett ; Mersereau v. Lewis ; Schemerhorn 
v. Vandorheyden ; Westfall v. Parsons. 
Examined and limited (Promise to pay debt 
of another) in Mallory v. Gillett, 21 K Y. 
412, 427, 442, which aff'd 23 Barb. 610, 
which see. Applied in Cailleux e. Hall, 1 
H. D. Smith, 7. Approved in Blunt ». 
Boyd, 3 Barb. 209. Followed in Ely «. 
McNight, 30 How. Pr. 102; Phillips v. 
Gray, 3 E. D. Smith, 69. Disting'd in 
Brisbane v. Beebe, 48 K Y. 636. Cited as 
authority in Stern v. Drinker, 2 R D. 
Smith, 404. See also Eddy v. Roberts, 17 
111. 508. Quoted and discussed in Browne 
on Stat, of Frauds, § 166 b, 4 ed. ; Id. 
§§ 167, 169, 171. Quoted and explained in 
2 Chitty on Contr. 1373, n. g, 11 Am. ed. 
Applied (Promise to pay third party) in 
Hamilton & Deansville Plank Road Co. ■». 
Rice, 7 Barb. 165; May v. Nat. B'k of 
Malone, 9 Hun, 112. Disting'd in Bigelow 
.,.». Davis, 16 Barb. 565; Dolph v. White, 12 
iV. Y. 300. Reviewed with other cases and 
applied in Hale v. Boardman, 27 Barb. 85. 

v. Cassidy, 16 Barb. 177. See (Joinder 

of persons, severally liable, as co-defendants) 
Code Civ. Pro. § 454. 

v. Cocks, 50 iV. Y. 689. Compare 

(Appeal after denial of new trial on inter- 
locutory judgment) Code Civ. Pro. § 1336. 

v. (,'oflin, 31 Barb. 556. For similar cases 



BARKER— BA RN ARD. 



47 



' (Rights of passenger riding on through 
ticket) see McClure v. Philadelphia, W. &B. 
II. R. Co., 34 Md. 532 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 345 ; 
Shedd ». Troy, &e. R. R. Co., 41 Vt. 88. 

V. Cook. 25 How. Pr. 190 ; s. c, 40 Barb. 

254; s. c, more fully, in 10 Abb. Pr. 83. De- 
cision in 40 Barb, followed (Vacating order 
of arrest for defects in copies of papers 
served) in Bank of Havana v. Moore, 5 Hun, 
624. 

■ t. Havens, 17 Johns. 234; s. c, 8 Am. 

Dec. 393. Approved (Consignor's liability 
for freight) in Holt v. Westcott, 43 Me. 449. 
Explained in Blanchard T. Page, 8 Gray 
(Mass.) 299. Followed in Grant v. Wood, 
1 Zah. (N. J.) 292; s. c, 47 Am. Dec. 162, 

• with note. Reviewed and disting'd (Duty of 
carrier as to delivery) in McEwen D.Jefferson- 
ville, Madison, &c. R. R. Co., 33 Ind. '615; 
s. c, 5 Am. R. 216. 

v. Hoff, 7 Hun, 284. Further decision 

in 52 How. Pr. 382. 

• v. Mechanics 1 Fire Ins. Co., 3 Wend. 

94; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 664, with note. See 
Hills v. Bannister. Applied (Personal lia- 
bility of agent executing contract) in 
Simonds v. Heard, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 120; 
s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 41, 43, with note; Fogg 
v. Virgin, 19 Me. 352; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 

■ 757, with note. Followed with Moss t>. 
Livingston, 4 N~. Y. 208, in Revolver 
Scraper Co. v. Tuttle, 61 Iowa, 423; s. c, 
47 Am. R. 816, with note. Examined in 
Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank u. Troy City 
Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 468. Explained in 
Stanton v. Camp, 4 Barb. 274. Applied 
(Personal liability of maker of note) in 
Wing v. Click, 56 Iowa, 473. Cited with 
Hills v. Bannister, 8 Cow. 31 ; Moss «. 
Livingston. 4 N. Y. 208 ; Dewitt v. Walton, 
9 JV. Y. 271, in Powers v. Briggs, 79 111. 493 ; 
s. c, 22 Am. R. 175. 

■ v. Millard, 16 Wend. 572. Explained 

(Statute of Limitations — judicial process) in 
Angell on Limitations, § 329, 6 ed. 

v. People, 20 Johns. 457. Aff'd in 3 

Cow. 686; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 322. Compare 
(Power of legislature to provide punishment 
for crimes) Wynehamer v. People, Vd AT. Y. 
378, 418. Decision in 3 Gow. cited with 
approval in People v. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451. 

v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 8 Johns. 307; s. c, 

5 Am. Dec. 339. See Alexandre v. Sun Ins. 
Co. 

v. Russell, 1 Code R. JV. S. 5. Rev'd 

in 1 Jd. 57; s. c, 11 Barb. 303. 

v. Savage, 1 Sweeny, 288. Rev'd in 

45 JV. Y. 191. See Baxter «. Second Ave. 
R. R. Co. ; Stackus v. N. Y. Central. &<.. R. 
R. Co. Decision in 1 Sweeny approved 
(Right of railroad to use of highway) in 
Adolph v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 33 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 185. Decision in 45 
JV. Y. followed (Rights of foot-passengers) 
in Myers v. Dixon, 35 Super.. Ct. (J. & S.) 
392. Followed (Non-suit for contributory 
negligence) with Harnett v. Bleecker St., 
&c. R. R. Co., 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 185, 



in Smith v. Smith, 50 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
503. 

v. Wing, 58 Barb. 73. See (Appeal 

from judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
.1345, n. 

Barkley v. Wilcox, 19 Hun, 320; s. c, as 
Barclay v. Same, 9 Weekly Dig. 298. AfTd 
in 86 JV. Y. 140. Decision in 19 Hun ex- 
plained (Improvements on realty damaging 
neighbors' lands) in Moak's UnderhilVs 
Torts, 1 Am. ed. '458. Decision in 86 JV Y. 
said "in Boyd v. Conklin; Sup'm. Ct. Mich., 
1884, 20 Nurthw. Rep. 597, to leave the 
door open to deal with cases involving the 
natural flow of water, upon the particular 
facts of each. 

Barlow v. Myers, 3 Hun, 720 ; s. c, 6 Sutfm. 
Ct. (T. & 0.) 183. Rev'd in 64 JV. Y. 41 ; 
s. c, 21 Am. R. 582. Decision in 64 JV. Y. 
relied on (Promise to third person) in Dun- 
ning v. Leavitt, 85 JV. Y. 30, 39. See to 
the contrary, Exchange B'k of St. Louis, 
107 Mass. 37; s. c, 9 Am. R. 1. But see 
Abb. Tr. Jiv. 386. 

v. Scott, 24 JV. Y. 40. Explained (Allow- 
ance of damages to one seeking equitable 
relief) in Bradley v. Aldrich, 40 JV Y. 504, 
509. Applied in Genet v. Howland, 45 
Barb. 570, to allowance of jury trial. 
Followed in Matthews v. Del. & Hud. Canal 
Co., 20 Han, 437. Explained in Waterm. 
Sp. Per/. § 515, n. Disting'd (Relief against 
contract) in Anonymous, 2 Abb. JV C. 65; 
Beams v. Columbian Ins. Co., 48 Barb. 454. 
Applied (Waiver of jury trial) in McKeon 
v. See, 4 Robt. 465. Explained (Judgment 
in accordance with nature of action) in Lewis 
e. Molt, 36 K Y. 399. Applied (Inter- 
pretation of promise) in Talcot v. Arnold, 61 
N. Y. 617. 

— j- v. Yeomans, 50 Barb. 187. Compare 
(Preference of cestui que trust to creditors, 
in case of commingling of trust funds with 
others) Hooley v. Gieve, 9 Abb. N. C. 8; 
Graham v. Van Duzer, 2 Red/. 322. 

Barnainan v. Williams, 8 Abb. Pr. 158; 
s. c, as Williams v. Barnaman, 28 How. Pr. 
59. Further decision in 19 Abb. Pr. 09. 

Barnard, Trial of, on impeachment. Re- 
ported in 3 vols, published at Albany, 1874. 
Trial and remarks of judges commented on 
as extremely valuable, by G. Willett Van 
Nest, in article on "Impeachable Offenses 
under the Constitution of U. S.," 16 Am. 
Law. Rev. 798, 815. 

Barnard v. Campbell, 65 Barb. 286. AfTd in 
55 JV. Y. 456; s. c, 14 Am. R. 289. Re-afTd 
in 58 N. Y. 73; s. c, 17 Am. R. 208. See 
Stalker v. McDonald. Decision in 55 iV. Y. 
disting'd (Estoppel) in Voorhees v. Olm- 
stead, 3 Hun, 744, 755 ; s. c. 6 Sup'm. Ct. 
( T. & C.) 1 72. . Compare 2 Pomeroy Eg. J. 
266. Quoted (Fraudulent vendee — valid 
title from) in Wait on Fraud. L'onv. § 448, 
n. 1. Decision in 58 N. Y. disting'd (Prece- 
dent debt, when not a consideration) in 
Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Hun, 146. Quoted 
(Fraud on vendor) in 1 Benj. on. Sales, § 649, 



48 



BAENAKD— BARNES. 



n. 15 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Compare 
(Rights of bona fide purchaser) 15 Am. L. 
Rev. 386. Both decisions disting'd (Ab- 
solute delivery of goods sold) in Parker v. 
Baxter, 86 2V. Y. 586, 596. 

t. Darling, 1 Barb. Oh. 218. Applied 

(Presumption that oath was taken within 
jurisdiction of officer administering it) in 
People ex rel. Mosher v. Stowell, 9 Abb. 2V. V. 
456, 461. 

v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 62 ; s. c, 2 Abb. 

Br. 2V. S. 47, and as Brainerd v. Heydrick, 

32 How. Pr. 97. Approved (Use of old 
affidavit) in Mojarrieta ■». Saenz, 80 2V. Y. 
547, 551. 

y. Kobbe, 3 Daly, 373. Aff d in 54 

2V Y. 516. Order for judgment because of 
frivolousness of answer afFd in 3 Daly, 
35. Decision in 54 2V. Y., cited (Dispute 
of principal's titles by factor) in Whart. Com. 
on Ag. § 761. See (Application of property 
to satisfaction of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 2450, n. 

v. Monnot, 34 Barb. 90. Rev' d in 1 

Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 108 ; s. c, 3 Keyes, 203 ; 

33 How. Pr. 440. See Knapp v. Wallace. 
Decision in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. cited as 
authority (Broker's cofnmissions) in Sibbald 
v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 2V. Y. 378, 381. 
Applied in Fiero v. Fiero, 52 Barb. 292. 
Followed in Heinrich v. Korn, 4 Daly, 74; 
Beebe v. Ranger, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 

456. Explained in Satterthwaite ». Vree- 
land, 48 How. Pr. 510. Disting'd (Parol 
agreements for transfer of real estate) in 
Badenhop •». McCahill, 42 How. Pr. 195. 

• t. Pierce, 28 'How. Pr. 232. See 

(Justices' court — appeal — offer to compro- 
mise) Qode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3070, n. 

• y. Viele, 21 Wend. 88. Applied (Inva- 
lidity of unauthorized security taken by 
sheriff) in Cook v. Freudcnthal, 80 2V. Y. 202, 
209. 

v. Wheeler, 3 How. Pr. 71, 73. Ex- 
plained (Time of motion to change place of 
trial) in Schenck v. McKie, 4 How. Pr. 246 ; 
Mixer «. Kuhn, Id. 409; s. c, 3 Code P. 
106 ; the cases of Beardsley v. Dickerson, 4 
How. Pr. 81; Lynch v. Mosher, Id. 86; 
Myers v. Feeter, Id. 240; Schenck v. McKie, 
Id. 246, being also explained and commented 
on in Mixer v. Kuhn. 

Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. 663. Rev'd (En- 
ticing away wife) in 1 Keyes, 390; s. c, 1 
Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 111. 

— — v. Atlantic, &c. R. R. Co. of Brooklyn, 
Sup'm. Ct. MSS. Followed (Right of the 
Long Island R. R. Co. to operate a railroad 
by steam over certain lands) in People v. 
Long Island R. R. Co., 9 Abb. N. Cas. 184; 
s. c, 6 How. Pr. 400. 

v. Barnes, 13 Hun, 233. Compare 

(Application for payment of legacy) Code 
Civ. Pro. § 2719. 

v. Barrow, 6 All. L. J. 94. Rev'd in 

61 2V. y. 39. 

v. Brown, 11 Hun, 315. Aff'd in part, 

and rev'd iu part in 80 2V. Y. 527. See 



Hoyle v. Pittsburgh & Montreal R. R. Co- 
Decision in 80 2V Y. explained ("Issue of 
stock) in Hatch v. Western Union Tel. Co., 
9 Abb. 2V. C. 430, 435. 

v. Buck, 1 Lam. 268. Said in Throop't 

Code Cio. Pro. ch. VII. tit. III. n., to be 
incorporated into § 635, as to when a war- 
rant of attachment may be granted. 

v. Camack, 1 Barb. 392. Approved (Re- 
instating prior mortgage procured to be 
canceled by fraud) in Farmers' and Drovers' 
Ins. Co. v. German Ins. Co., 79 Ky. 598. 
Approved (Widow as witness) in Jackson v. 
Barron, 37 2V H. 494. Disting'd and Ratcliff 
v. Wales, 1 Hill, 63, followed (Divorced 
wife as witness) in Dickerman o. Grave3, 3 
Cush. (Mass.) 308; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 41, 
with note. 

t. Greenzeback, 1 Edw. 41. See another 

case on this will, in Cutter v. Doughty, 23 
Weiid. 513, which was rev'd in 7 Hill, 305. 

v. Harris, 3 Barb. 603. Aft'd in 4 

2V Y. 374. Decision in 4 2V. Y. and Brown 
■c. Cady, 19 Wend. 477, 479, examined 
and approved (Turisdiction' of justice's 
court) in Reno v. Pinder, 20 2V. Y. 298, 304. 
Commented on and limited in Willins v. 
Wheeler, 8 Abb. Pr. 119. 

v. Hathaway, 66 Barb. 452. Applied 

(Limitation of absolute gift to a life estate) 
in Colt v. Heard, 10 Hun, 189, 193. 
Followed (When devisee takes fee) in Coe 
t. De Witt, 22 Hun, 428. 

v. McAllister, 18 How. Pr. 534. See 

to the contrary (Refusing injunction in case 
of contract providing remedy in damages) 
Phenix Ins. Co. ■». Continental Ins. Co., 14 
Abb. Pr. 2V. 8. 266. Disting'd with Kessle 
v. Resse, 29 How.Pr. 382; Mott v. Mott, 11 
Barb. 127; Trenor ». Jackson, 46 How. Pr. 
389, in McCarell v. Braham (U. S. Cir. Ct., 
S. D. N. Y., Mch., 1883), 15 Reporter, 485. 

— v. Morgan, 3 Hun, 703. Followed 
(Reaching patent rights in supplementary 
proceedings) in Pacific B'k v. Robinson, 57 
Cal. 520; s. c, 40 Am. R. 120. 

v. Mott, 16 Abb. Pr. 2V. S. 57. Aff'd in 

effect in 6 Daly, 150; s. c, 51 How. Pr. 27, 
which was aff'd in 64 N. Y. 397; s. c, 21 
Am. R. 625. Decision in 64 2V. Y. followed 
(Subrogation to rights of mortgagee) iu 
Gatewood v. Gate wood, 75 Va. 407, ,414. 
Applied in Srielling v.. Mclntyre, 6 Abb. N. 
C. 469, 472. Limited (Action by grantee 
paying off incumbrance) in 3 Am. Dec. 
249, n. 

— v. Ontario Bank, 19 2V Y. 152. Fol- 
lowed (Certificate of deposit) in Pardee v. 
Fish, 60 2V. Y. 265, 268. Discussed (Mode 
of making corporate contract) in Aug. & A. 
on Corp. § 253, a, 11 ed. 

— v. Ferine, 9 Barb. 202. Aff'd in 15 Id. 
249; which was aff'd in 12 N. Y. 18, the 
question of amendment not being raised* 
on the appeals. See Trustees of Hamilton 
College v. Stewart. Decision in 9 Barb. 
collated (Guaranty — notice to promisee), 
with other cases, in 2 Hare <t W. Am. Lead. 



JBAItNES— BAENE WALL. 



49 



Gas. 90, 5 ed. Decision in 12 N". Y. followed 
(Necessity of taking objection on trial) in 
Voorhees «. Burchard, 55 N. 7. 93, 104; 
Holloway v. Stephens, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & 
G.) 565. Disting'd (Eight to have question 
submitted to jury) in Wcstcott v. Keeler, 4 
Bono. 564, 573 ; Astor v. Lent, 6 Bosw. 620 ; 
Sheldon v. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 
26 N. Y. 465 ; Stone v. Flower, 47 N. Y. 568; 
Clemence v. City of Auburn, 63 N. Y. 338; 
"Wombough v. Cooper, 2 nun, 432. Fol- 
lowed in Hagaman «. Burr, 41 Super. Ct. 

■ (J. & 8.) 423, -425; White v. Talraage, 35 
Super. Ct. (/.. & S.) 223. Applied (Binding 
effect of subscription) in Eastern Plank 
Road Co. v. Vaughan, 20 Barb. 100 ; Kennedy 
v. Cotton, 28 Barb. 65. Applied (Request 
as consideration) in Hurd v. Green, 17 Hun, 

, 334. 

t. Quigley, 59 N. Y.' 265. _ Disting'd 

'■' "(Action when ex contractu, notwithstanding 

allegations of fraud) in Ross ». Terry, 63 N. 
Y. 613. Disting'd (Amendment of com- 
plaint) in Rhemkc v. Clinton, 2 Utah T. 
. 235. 

- — v. Roberts, 5 Bono. 73. Overruled 
(Granting new trial after judgment) in 
Tracey v. Altmyer, 46 K Y. 598. 

— — v. Smith, 1 Bobt. 699; s. c, more fully, 

10 Abb. Pr. 420. 
— — t. Stpughton, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 

075. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 58 H. 

Y. 045. Further decisions in 6 Man, 254; 

10 Id. 14. 
v. Underwood, 3 Lans. 526. Rev'd in 

■ 4.1 K K 351. Decision in 47 K Y. followed 
(Husband's right to administer on estate of 
deceased wife) in Gilman u. McArdle, 12 
Abb. N. C. 414. Followed (Husband's right 
to personal propertv of deceased wife) in 
Fry v. Smith, 10 Abb. K C. 224, 229, 231. 
Followed with Fry o. Smith, and Kearney 
v. Missionary Society of St. Paul, 10 
Abb. iV. C. 274 ; disting'd in Robins v. Mc- 
Clure, 67 How. Pr. 83. Disting'd in Taplin 
v. "Wilson, 4 Uun, 246. Collated (Estate 
by curtesy — how affected by statute), 
with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. Cjses 
on Beat Prop. 289. 

v. West, 16 Sun, 68. Applied (Compul- 
sory reference) in Cassedy v. Wallace, 61 
Sow. Pr. 240, 242. 

v. Willett, 1 1 A bb. Pr. 225 ; s.c, 19 Row. 

Pr. 504. Aff'd in 35 Barb. 514; s. c, 12 
Abb. Pr. 448. 

Barnesciotta v. People, 10 Hun, 137. Affd 
in 69 N~. Y. 612, on opinion of Datis, J., 
below. ' 

Barnett, Matter of, 52 Uow. PA 73. Modi- 
fled and affd in 11 LTun, 468; s. c, 53 
How. Pr. 247. 

v. Kincaid, 2 Lans. 320. Disting'd and 

explained (Power of surrogate to pass, upon 
disputed claims on application to sell land 
to pay debts) in Hopkins v. Van Valken- 
burgb, 10 Hun, 3. 

v. Liclitenstein, 39 Barb. 194. Dis- 
approved (Power of married woman to 



charge separate estate) in Corn Exchange 
Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 8 Abb. Pr. IT. 8. 246, 
which was, however, rev'd in 9 Id. 156, as 
contrary to Kelso v. Tabor, 52 Barb. _ 125. 
Disapproved, and the dissenting opinion 
approved, in Kelso v. Tabor. Approved in 
Stockton «. Farley, 10 W. Va. 175. 

v. Pardow, 10 Wend. 015. Disting'd (Bail) 

• in Miles «. Clarke, 4 Bosw. 632, 636. 

v. Selling, 9 Hun, 230. Modified 

(Replevin for check), on appeal, in 70 N. Y. 
492; s. c, 3 Abb. N. C. 83; 54 How. Pr. 
118. See Eaton, Cole & Burnham Co. v. 
Avery. Decision in 70 If. Y. followed (Ar- 
rest for fraudulent purchase) in Lippman 
«. Shapiro, 50 Super. Gt. (J. <& S.) 307. 

Barnewall v. Church, 1 Cai. 217; s. c, 2 
Am. Dec. 180, with note, showing it to be a 
leading case as to various points relating to 
marine policies. See Moses v. Sun. Mut. 
Ins. Co. 

v. Bnrstenbinder, 64 Barb. 212 ; s 

c, more fully, 7 Bans. 210. Discussed, 
with other cases (Liability for carrriage of 
articles whose inherent defects have not 
been disclosed) in 1 Add. on Torts, 713, n. 
1, Wood's ed. Explained in 2 Id. 449, n. 
Discussed in 1 Add. on Contr. 419, n. 1, 
Abb. ed. 

v. City of Buffalo, 15 Barb. 457. But 

see (Assessment proceedings under Buffalo 
charter) Howell ■c. City of Buffalo, 15 JST. Y. 
512, where a contrary view seems to be 
taken. 

v. Dewey, 13 Johns. 224; s. C, 7 Am. 

Dec. 372, with note, collecting cases. Ap- 
plied (Setting out contract in action founded 
on fraud) in Corwin v. Davison, 9 Gow. 22. 

v. GriQu, 2 N. Y. 3G5. See Goodrich 

v. Downs ; Grover v. Wakeman ; Litchfield 
«. White. Explained in Curtis «. Leavitt, 
15 N. Y. 9, 118, 170 (modifying 17 Barb. 
309, 370, which sec), as not authority (As- 
signments for creditors) as to construction 
of 2 B. S. 135, § 1, and in Nicholson v. 
Leavitt, 9 K Y. Leg. Obs. 105; s. c, 4 
Sandf. 252, 293, as not authority that a. 
power to sell on credit vitiates aa assign 
ment. See also Whitney v. Krows, 11 
Barb. 200. But see Nicholson v. Leavitt, 
rev'd in 6 N. Y. 521, 10 N. Y. 591, wher..- 
Barney b. Griffin was cited as authority. 
Disting'd (Validity of assignment) in Bene- 
dict v. Huntington, 32 K Y. 219; Kellogg 
v. Slawson, 11 N. Y. 305, which aff'd U 
Barb. 57, which see; Wynkoop «. Shard- 
low, 29 now. Pr. 368 ; Townsend v. 
Stearns, 32 JST. Y. 216. Followed (Provis- 
ion for sale on credit) in Porter v. Williams, 
9 iV. F. 142; which aff'd 5 now. Pr. 445, 
which see; Wilson v. Lamont, 10 now. 
Pr. 177; Buidick v. Post, 12 Barb. 171. 
Followed and approved in Billings v. Bil- 
lings, 2 Cal. 107; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 319. 
Quoted and commented upon in Bishop 
on Assign. § 211. Quoted and discussed 
(Terms of sale) in Burrill on Assign. § 221, 
n. 5, 4 cd. Disting'd (Reservations iu 



50 



BAEKEWALL— BARROW. 



debtor's favor) in Bishop v. Halsey, 3 Abb. 
Pr. 403. Explained in Doremus v. Lewis, 
8 Barb. 126. Disting'd iu Van Rossum v. 
Walker, 11 Barb. 240. Disting'd and 
questioned in Powers v. Graydon, 10 Bosw. 
G45. Followed in Smith v. Howard, 20 
How. Pr. 128; Collomb v. Caldwell. 16 JV. 
Y. 480. Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conn. 
§ 327. Quoted (Preferences) in Burrill on 
Assign. §§ 166, 109, 4 ed. Explained and 
limited (Provisions for benefit of assignee) 
in Campbell v. Woodworth, 24 JV". Y. 305, 
•which aff'd 33 Barb. 427, which see. Fol- 
lowed in Matter of Shaw, 18 nun, 196. 

v. Oyster Bay & Huntington Steamboat 

Co., 2 Sup'm. Gt. (r. & C). 598. Further 
decision afFg this in effect, in 67 2V. Y. 301 ; 
s. c, 23 Am. P. 115. 

Earns v. Barrow, 61 N. Y. 39, 41. See Trevor 
<e. Wood. . Applied (Strict- construction of 
guaranty) in Evansvillo Nat. B'k ». Kauff- 
mann, 93 N. Y. 273, 288, which rev'd 24 
Hun, 615, where Barns v. Barrow was 
disting'd. 

v. Graham, 4 Cow. 452 ; s. c, 15 Am. 

Dec. 394. See Newton v. Galbraith ; Thomas 
v. Boosa. Quoted and discussed (Demand 
< and tender) in 2 Chitty on Contr. 1211, n. h, 
11 Am. ed. 

Barnnm y. Childs, 1 Sandf. 58. Affd in 11 
Barb. 14. 

v. Hempstead, 7 Paige, 568. See (Trust 

permissible on assignment for benefit of 
creditors) Darling v. Rogers, 22 Wend. 483. 
Followed with Grover v. Wakeman, 11 
Wend. 203; s.-c, 25 Am. Pec. 624 (Assign- 
ment for creditors — when void as tending to 
hinder and delay them) in Gazram «. 
v. Poyntz, 4 Ala. 374 ; s. c, 37 Am. 
Pec. 745, 748, with note. Explained 
(Preferences) in Burrill on Assign. § 179, 
4 ed. ' Explained (Designation of debts) in 
§ 313. 

v. Seneca County Bank, 6 How. Pr. 

82. Followed (Motion to dismiss appeal to 
general term — where heard) in Harris v. 
Ciark, 10 How. Pr. 415, 420. 

Barrere V: Barrere, 4 Johns. Ch. 187, 191. 
See Mason v. Mason. Approvingly cited 
(Divorce from bed and board) in 1 Bish. on 
Mar. & D. n. 3, § 29, 6 ed. 

Barrett v. Carter, 3 Bans. 68. See also 
(Absolute deed, when a mortgage) Thomp- 
son v. Ilickey, 6 Abb. K C. 159, 163. 

v. Third Av. It. R. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. iV. 

S. 205; s. c, 1 Sweeny, 508. Aff'd in 45 
N. Y. 628. Decision in 45 K Y. disting'd 
(Joint action against wrong-doers) in Jack- 
son v. Brookins, 5 Hun, 535; Chipman> v. 
Palmer, 77 K Y. 51. Applied (Contrib- 
utory negligence of one having charge of 
conveyance) iu Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 
3 Hun, 198. Explained in dissenting opinion 
in Perry «. Lansinpj, 17 Hun, 41. Ex- 
plained (Recovery for negligence concurring 
with other causes) in Pollet «. Long,' 56 
27. V. 205. See (Restoration of lien) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1260, n. 



v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348. See Hoffman v. 

Carow. Cited as authority (Trespass or 
replevin for taking of chattel) in Simmons 
v. Jenkins, 76 III. 479. Dissented from in 
Farley «. Lincoln, 51- 2V. H. 577; s. c, 12 
Am. P. 182. Approved (Demand before suit) 
in Twinam v. Swart, 4 Lans. 263, 268. See, 
to the contrary, Harpending v. Myers, 55 
Cal. 558. Disapproved with Tallman v. 

■ Turck, 26 Barb. 167, in Surles v. Sweeney, 
11 Greg. 21. 

Barretto v. Suowden, 5 Wend. 181 ; s. c, 10 
N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 815, with brief note, 
on compensation, as usury. See Condit v. 
Baldwin. ' 

Barrie v. Dana. See Jackson v. Hasbrouck. 

Barringer v. Delaware & Hudson Canal 

. Co., 19 Han, .216, Disting'd (Fellow 
servants) in McCosker v. Long Island. R. R. 

' Co., 2l Htin,5Q0. ' " ' 

v. N. ¥. Central, &e. R. R. Co., 18 

Hun, 398. Explained (Contributory negli- 
gence) as put on the ground that defendant's 
■negligence did not contribute,* in. Master- 
son v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 84 iV. 
Y. 247, 254. ' 

Barron v. People, -1' if. <Y. 386; s. c, more 
fully, in 6 N.-Y.Leg. Obs. 308. 

v. Richard, 3 Edw. 96. Affd as Bar- 
row v. Richards, in 8 Paige, 351: 

Barrow v. Pax ton, 5 Johns. 258; s. c, 4 
Am. Pec. 354 ; 3 K Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 
1011, with brief note. Disting'd (Retention 
of possession by vendor) with Beals v. 
Guernsey, 8 Johns. 446 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec: 
348, the case of Sturtevant r>. Ballard, 9 
Johns. 339 ; s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 281, being 
cited as authority in Coburn v. Pickering, 
3 K H. 415 ; , s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 375, 
with note. Criticised as unsound in rea- 
son and Sturtevant v. Ballard, preferred 
and applied in Clow v. Woods, 5 Serg. 
■ & P. (P«.) 275 ; s. c, 9 Am. Pec. 346, with 
note. Reviewed with Beals v. Guernsey, 8 
Johns. 446 ; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 348 ; Sturtevant 
v. Ballard, 9 Id. 337; s, c, 6 Am. Dec. 281; 
Ludlow v. Hurd, 19 Johns. 218; Bisscll v. 
Hopkins,3 Cow. 166 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 295 ; 
Divver o. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 500 ; s. c.; 2 
Am. Dec. 655, and other cases, in Watson e. 
Williams, 4 Blachf. (ind.) 26; s. c, 28 Am. 
Dec. 36, 40, with note. Cited in 2 Pars, on 
Contr. 112, n. a, as containing Kent, Ch. J.'s 
discussion of Cortelyou ■». Lansing, 2 Gaines 
Cos. 200. 

v. Rhinclandcr, 1 Johns. Ch. 550. 

Further decision in 3 Id. 614. Rev'd as to 
fifth exception. Affd, as to others, in 17 
Johns. 538. 

v. Richard, 8 Paige, 351 ; s. c, 35 Am. 

Dec. 713; with note, collecting cases, 
where it is said to have been frequently 
cited and approved. See Hills v. Miller. 
Cited as authority (Coven ints running with 
land) in NorflceU. Cromwell, 70 iV. G. 634; 
s. c, 16 Am. P. 787, 792. Collated, -with 
other cases, in McAdam Landl. & T. 2 ed. 
§ 98. Discussed in 2 Washb. on P. P. 4 ed. 



BARRDSO— I3ARTLETT. 



_5J 



( 812.. Quoted (In junction — restraining vio- 
lation of covenants) in 2 High on Inj. 2 ed. 
§ 1157, n. 1. 

Barruso v. Marian, 2 Johns. 145; s. c, 3 N. 
Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 382, with brief note, 
on the rules for determining whether cov- 
enants are dependent, or independent. 

Barry v. Bruno, 71 K Y. 261. Aff g 8 Hun, 
395, which arfd Barry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 
id How. Pr. 504. See Barry®. Equitable Life 
Ins. Co. Decision in 71 N. Y. disting'd with 
Wilson v. Lawrence, 8 Hun, 523; 13 Id. 
238; Barry v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 59 
If. . Y. 587; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 Id. 9 
(Right of wife to insurance policy in her 
favor) in -Britten ■». • Mutual Life Ins. Co., 
If. Y. Daily Reg., Aug. 8, 1883. Disting'd 
in Pilcher v. N. Y. Life Lis. Co., 33 La. 
Ann. 322. Followed (Determination -of 
conflicting claims to insurance moneys) in 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. ■». Blake, If. Y. Daily 
Meg., Dec. 27, 1881. 

— v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. 
If. 8. 385, ». Aff d in 59 If. Y. 587. See 
Barry v. Brune; Eadie e. Slimmon. See 
(Stay pending foreign action) Barry v. Mu- 
tual Life Ins. Co., 2 Swp'm. Ct. (?'. & C.) 15. 
Decision in 59 AT Y. disting'd with Barry 
v. Brune, 71 Id. 261; Wilson v. Lawrence, 
76 Id. 585; Brummer v. Cohn, 86 Id. 11 
(Assignment of -policy issued to wife on the 
life of her husband) in Living v. Domett, 26 
Han, 150. Followed in Barry v. Brun'e, 71 
N. Y. 261; Smillie v: Quinn, 25 Hun, 332, 
335. Disting'd and explained in Robinson 
v.- Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 16 Blatchf. 
0. Ct. 194, 207, 213, as not applicable if the 
policy is expressly payable to her assigns. 
Disting'd in Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 If. Y. 
593, 606. Applied (Liability of such policy 
to creditors) in Bloomingdale «. Lisberger, 
24 Hun. 355, 359. 

- — v. Kennedy, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 421. 
Compare (Property that passes to receiver) 
Ritterband v. Baggett, 4 Abb. N. 0. .07. 
Disting'd from case of assignee in bankruptcy 
in Matter of Gallagher, 16 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 
410,416. 

— v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sand/. 
Oh. 280. See Burrall «. Bushwick R. R. 
Co. ; Keichum *. City of Buffalo; Partridge 
v. Badger. Commented on (Right of 
corporation to borrow) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 
15 JV". Y. 9, 62, 219, 202; Smith «. Law, 21 
Id. 296, 299. Applied as to the capital 
stock mentioned in the charter of a corpora- 
tion not being a limitation of the amount of 
property which it may own, — in Williams v. 
Western Union Tel. Co., 61 How. Pr. 216, 
221; s. c, 9 Abb. N. O. 437, 444. Applied 
(Security for future advances) in Ackerman 
1>. Ilunsicker, 21 Hun, 53 ; which was rev'd 
in 85 K Y. 43, 51, which see. Quoted 
(Construction of charters) in Morawetz on 
Priv. Corp. § 152. Quoted (Shareholders 
— profits) in Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 
340. 

— v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 49 How. Pr. 



504. AfFd as Barry c- Brune, in B'Hun, 395, 
which was aff'd in 71 If. Y. 201. Other 

' decisions in 53 N. Y. .536, and 2 Sup'm, 
Ct. {T..S C.) 15. See Barry v. Equitable 
Life Ins. Co. Decision in 53 If. Y. fol- 
lowed (Determination of conflicting claims 
to insurance moneys) in Mutual Life Ins. 
Co. «.- Blake, N. Y. Daily Reg., Dec. 27, 
1881. 

v. Ransom. 12 N. Y. 462. See Chapin 

v. Merrill; Coleman. «. First Nat. Bank- of 
Elmira; Hubbard v. Gurncy; Pechneru. 
Phoenix Ins. Co.; Sisson v. Barrett. Exam- 
ined (Parol evidence of contract) in Thomas 
' v. Truscott, ■ 53 Barb. 204. Disting'd in 
Campbell v. fate, 7 Lans.SIZ. Applied in 
Easterly i>. Barber, 66 If, Y. 436, overruling 
3 Sup'm. Ct. {T.&C.) 423, which see; Cqle- 
man e.First Nat. B'k of Elmira, 53 Barb. 393. 
Approved in White v. Boyce, U. S. Cir. Ct: S. 
D. N. Y., Aug. 1884, 21 Fed. Rep. 232. Ex- 
plain d (Contribution among sureties) ; in 
Tobias v. Rogers, 13 ■ N. Y. 66. Discussed 

- in 8 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 451. Applied with 
Easterly?). Barber, 66 If. Y. 433 (Arrange- 

■ ment of liability of indorscrs among them- 
selves) in Fraley v. Starr, 17 West. Jar. 193; 

. abstr. s. c, 16 Weekly Dig. 338. To the 
contrary (Parol proof of promise to in- 
demnify) see Bissig v. Britton,-59 Mo. 20,4; 
s. c, 21 Am. R. 379. See also Abb. Tr. M. 

. 255. 

Bartean v. Phoenix Mnt. Life Ins. Co.< 3 
Sup'm. Ct. (51 & C.) 576; s. c, 67 Barb. 
354; mem. of s. c, 1 Hun, 430. Afl'd in 
67 A r . Y. 595, with mem. of opinion. 

Bartholomew v. Finuemore, 17 Barb. 428. 
See Green ?. Green. Commented upon 
(Infant avoiding contract) in 1 Hare & W. 
Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 319. 

v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28 ; s. c, 6 K Y. 

Com-. L. Law. ed. 921, with brief note, 
citing other cases. Also reported in 11 
Am. Dec. 237, with note. See Frear v. 
Hardenbergh. Followed with Everts v. 
Adams, 12 Johns. 352; Dunbar v. Williams, 
10. Id. 249 (Creation of relation of debtor 
and creditor) in Fitch ». Newberry, 1 Doug. 
(Mich.) 1 ; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 33, 43. Applied 
(Recovery for gratuitous services) in Hewitt 
v. Bronson, 5 Daly, 1, 0. Discussed in 1 
Pars, on Contr. 446, n. v. Included (Con- 
tract — formal requisites) in Lawaon's Lead. 
Com. Law Gas. 'Simplified 2. 

— — v. Yaw, Clarice, 10. Rev'd in 9 Paige, 
165. 

Bartlc v. Gilman. 18 Jf. Y. 200. Facts more 
fully stated in 17 How. Pr. 1. 

Bartlett. Exp., 4 Bradf. 221, 224. Approved 
but disting'd (Power of guardian to change 
domicile of ward) in Marheineke v. Grot- 
haus, 72 Mo. 204. 

Bartlett, Matter of, 9 How. Pr. 414. Fol- 
lowed (Proceedings to compel delivery of 
books and papers pertaining to an office) in 
People v. Allen, 42 Barb. 206. 

Bartlett v. Bartlett, Clarke, 460. See Allen 
v, Allen. Approved (Denial of alimony in 



52 



BAETLETT— BAETLEY. 



action to annul marriage for impotency) in 
Bloodgood v. Bloodgood, 59 How. Pr. 42. 

v. Campbell, 1 Wend. 50. _ Upheld, 

citing many "cases (Judgment against prin- 
cipal as evidence against surety) with Fay 
t>. Ames, 44 Barb. 327; Lee v. Clark, 1 
Hill, 56; Franklin v. Hunt, 2 Id. 671; 
Westervelt v. Smith, 2 Duer, 440; Annctt 
v. Terry, 35 If. Y. 256. — the cases of Thomas 
v. Hubbell, 15 If. Y. 405, and Douglass v. 
Howland, 24 Wend. 35, being disting'd, and 
the latter criticised, in Stephens v. Shafer, 
48 Wis. 54; s. c, 33 Am. R. 793, with 
note collating authorities. Questioned in 
Thomas v. Hubbell, 15 K Y. 405. 

v. Crozier, 15 Johns. 250. Rev'd in 

17 Johns. 439 ; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 428, with 
note, showing it to have been largely cited. 
See Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Weet v. 
Trustees of Brockport. Reviewed at length 
(Liability of overseers of highway to civil 
action) in Freeholders of Sussex o. Slrader, 
3 Harr. (K J.) 108; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 530- 
53S, with note. Thought iu Garlinghouse 
v. Jacobs, 29 If. Y. 297, to be, with Weet v. 
Trustees of Brockport. 16 If. Y. 161, authority 
against liability of commissioners also, only 
Smith v. Wright, 24 Barb. 170, being to the 
contrary. But see Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, 
overruled on this point, and Bartlett v. 
Crozier explained and criticised, in Hover v. 
Barkhoof, 44 If. Y. 119. Reviewed (Lia- 
bility of municipal corporation for negli- 
gence) with Bailey v. Mayor, &c. of 1ST. Y., 
3 BUI, 531; 2 Den. 433; Mayor, &c. of N. 
Y. ». Furze, Id. 612; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 1 Den. 595; Lloyd v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 5 K Y. 369; Barton v. City of 
Syracuse, 30 Id. 54 ; Rochester White Lead 
Co. v. City of Rochester, 3 Id. 463; Mills v. 
City of Brooklyn, 32 Id. 489; Ilutson v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 289; 9 K 
Y. 163; Weet v. Trustees of Brockport, 16 
If. Y. 161, 171; Morey v. Town of Newfane, 
8 Barb. 645, and many other cases, in Hill 
v. City of Boston, .122 Mass. 344; s.c, 23 
Am. R. 332, 339, 347, 362, 363. Explained 
and approved in Peck v. Village of Batavia, 
32 Barb. 634,-641, 645, 64G. Applied in 
Hollenbeck v. Winnebago Co., 95 III. 148; 
s. c, 35 Am. R. 151, 155, with note. 
Disting'd (Personal liability of public 
officers) in Donovan v. MeAlpin, 46 Super. 
Gt. (J. & S.) 114 ; Adsit v. Brady, 4 
mil, 634; Wall v. Eastman, 1 Mich. 
170. Explained and applied (Liability for 
injury caused by defects in highways) in 
Smith®. Wright, 24 Barb. 170; 27 Id. 631. 
Regarded as settled law in Hill v. Super- 
visors of Livingston, 12 If. Y. 57. Applied 
in Hutson v. City of N. Y., 5 Sandf. 297. 
Reviewed in Flynn v. Canton Co., 40 Md. 
312; s. c, 17 Am. It. 008. Cited as au- 
thority with Townsend v. Susquehanna S. 
R. Co., G Johns. 90, in Erie City v. Schwingle, 
10 Harris (Pa.) 384; s. c.,- 60 Am. Deo. 87, 
with note. Quoted and collated, with other 
cases, in Gooh Hvjhw. L. 4 ed. 47. Fol- 



lowed (Duty of commissioners as to repairs) 
in People v. Comm'rs of Hudson, 7 Wend. 
477. Disting'd in Commissioners of Jeffer- 
son Co. v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231; s. c, 
35 Am. R. 462, which cited Muzzy v. 
Shattuck, 1 Den. 233, as not applicable to 
case of liability of county treasurer. Same 
point iu Ward «. School District, 10 Neb. 
293; s. c, 33 Am. R. 477. Disting'd as 
inapplicable to turnpike company in Presi- 
dent, &c. of Waterford Turnpike Co. v. 
People, 9 Barb. 174. See citations in 8 
Am. Dec. 442, n., of cases where it has been 
relied on as showing that a cause of action 
must be stated. 

v. Drew, 4 Lans. 444; s. c, 60 Barb. 648. 

Aff'd in 57 iV. Y. 587. See Baker v. Braman. 
Disting'd (Common law liability of stock- 
holders), in Griffith v. Mangam, 73 iV. 
Y. Oil. See, also (Parties to creditor's 
action against stockholder) Hatch v. Dana, 
101 U. S. 205, 212. Commented on and 
applied in Thompson v. Reno Sav'gs B'k 
(Nov. 1885). Disting'd (Enforcing cred- 
itors' lien on assets of insolvent corpora- 
tion) in McLean <v. Eastman, 21 Hun, 312. 
Followed in National Trust Co. v. Miller, 
33 If. J. Eq. 155. Decision in 60 Barb, said, 
in Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2463, n., to be over- 
ruled by that section. 

v. Gale, 4 Paige, 503. Examined (Ef- 
fect of answer in equity) in Smith v. Potter, 
3 Wise 438. 

v. Hatch, 17 Abb. Pr. 461. See to the 

contrary, as to dictum that trustee who 
concurred cannot have relief, Baynard «. 
Woolley, 20 Bean. 583. 

v. J mid, 23 Barb. 262. Affi'd in 21 

If. Y. 200. See Kane v. Bloodgood. De- 
cision in 21 If. Y. cited (Collateral im- 
peachment of sheriffs deeds) in 2 Whart. 
Com. on Ee. § 981. See (Application of 
statute of limitations to defenses) Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 414, n. 

v. McNeil, 49 How. Pr. 55 ; mem. of 

s. c, 3 Hun, 221; 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
675. Affi'd in 60 If. Y. 53. . 

v Robinson, 9 Bosw. 305. Affd in 39 

If. Y. 187. 

y. Spieer, 12 Han, 398. Affd in 75 

If. Y. 528. 

v. Wheeler, 44 Barb. 162. Disting'd 

(Recovery where contract is void under stat- 
ute of frauds), in Van Valkenburgh <s. Crof- 
fut, 15 Him, 147, 150. Followed, in Weir 
v. Hill, 2 Lans. 278. 

v. Wynian, 14 Johns. 261. See Geer v. 

Archer. Quoted and explained (Seamen's 
contracts — Act of Congress of July 20, 
1790) in 1 Pars, on Covtr. 391, n. r. 
Quoted in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 197, •«. 

Bartley v. Riclitiucyer. 4 2f. Y. 38; s. c, 
53 Am. Dec. 338 ; with extended note. 
See Hewitt v.' Prime ; Martiu ■«. Payne. 
Disting'd (Who can maintain action for se- 
duction) in Ceitwell v. Hoyt, 6 Hun, 575, 
578, 581. Limited, in Furman v. Van Sise, 
56 If, Y. 435, 438. Criticised, in Gray v. 



BAETO— BASKIK 



53 



Durland, 50 Barb. 100, 211, as to standing 
alone in denying mother's right to main- 
tain action. Followed (Action for seduc- 
tion of daughter not in parent's employ), in 
Dain v. Wycoff, 7 K Y 195. Disting'd 
and applied, in Mulvehall v. Mill ward, 11 
N. Y. 345. Followed, with White v. Nel- 
lis, 31 If. Y. 405; Martin v. Payne, 9 
Johns. 38T ; Clark v. Fitch, 2 Wend. 459 ; 
Mulvehall v. Millward, 11 N. Y. 343; 
Furman v. Van Sise, 50 Id. 435 ; in Lav- 
ery v. Crooke, 52 Wise. 612; 38 Am. 
Gases on Torts, 291. Commented upon in 
Id. 297. Disapproved (Damages for seduc- 
tion of daughter of full age) in Davidson 
v. Abbott, 52 Vt. 510; s. c, 36 Am. R. 
767. Applied (Gravamen of action for se- 

I duction), in Badgley v. Decker, 44 Barb. 
589. Approved (Exemplary damages for 
seduction, when denied) in Hogan v. Cre- 
gan, 6 Robt. 138, 154. Cited as authority, 
in Damon v. Moore, 5 Lam. 457. Applied 
(Action for injury to child, in child's name) 
in Robalina v. Armstrong, 15 Barb. 247. 
Applied (Amount of verdict in action for 
seduction) in Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 
629. 

Barto v. Himrod, 8 If. Y. 483; s. c, 59 
Am. Bee. 506, with note. See Gould v. 
Town of Sterling; .Starin v. Town of Gen- 
oa; Thorne v. Cramer. Followed (TJnlaw- 
. ful delegation of legislative power) in Lam- 
merU. Lid well, 02 Mo. 188; s. c, 21 Am. li. 
411, 414. Disting'd in Curriers. West Side 
Elev. Pat. Ry. Co. of N.Y., 6 Blatehf. O. Ct. ' 
487, 493; Matter of Gilbert Elevated R. R. 
Co., 70 If. Y. 301, 364 ; People *. Fire Assoc, 
of Phila., 92 If. Y. 311. Quoted and col- 
lated with other cases, in Brightly Cases on 
Elect. 24. Criticised and limited, in State 
fl. O'Neil, 24 Wise. 149. Examined and 
approved, with Bradley v. Baxter, 15 Barb. 
122; Clark v. City of Rochester, 28 If. Y. 
605, 633; People e. Collins, 3 Mich. 370; 
Meshmeier v. State, 11 Lid. 4S2. Compare 
Johnson v. Rich, 9 Barb. 080. Disting'd in 
Starin v. Town of Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439, 
447. Sec, in this connection, Fell v. State, 
42 Md. 71; s. ,c, 20 Am. R. 83. Exam- 
ined and disting'd (Special findings by jury) 
in Jones v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 61 If. Y. 
79, 83. 

Barton v. Beer, 21 Mow. Pr. 309. Followed 
(Enforcing liability of married woman car- 
rying on business on her own account) in 
Klen v. Gibney. 24 IIow. Pr. 31. 

v. City of Syracuse, 37 Barb. 292. 

Aft'd in 30 If. Y. 54. See Bartlett v. 

. Crozier ; Mayor, &c. of 3ST. Y. v. Furze ; Mills 
v. City of Brooklyn ; Rochester White Lead 
Co. v. City of Rochester; Wilson v. Mayor, 
&c. of N.-Y. Decision in 37 Barb, disting'd 
(Injuries through defective public works) in 
Mills is. City of Brooklyn, 32 N. Y. 489, 500. 
Applied in Bastable v. City of Syracuse, 8 
Hun,- 592. Followed in Nims v. Mayor, &c. 
of Troy, 59 If. Y. 508, which aff d 3 Sufm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 7, which see. Followed (Right 



of citizen to use of public streets) in Wendell 
v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 4 Abh. Ct. Apj>. Dec. 
503, 508, 571. Decision-in 30 If. Y. applied 
(Injuries through defective public works) 
in McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 
194. 

v. Fort Jackson. &c. Plank Road Co., 

17 Barb. 397. Reviewed, with Other cases 
(Contract growing out of previous illegal 
contract, when also illegal) in 7 Bradw. {111.) 
504. 

v. Hermann, 11 Abb. Pi: If. S. 378. 

Followed (Effect of payments made on 
building contract without production of 
architect's certificate) in Iladen v. Coleman, 
42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 250. 

v. N. Y. Central, &c. K. R. Co., 1 

Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 297. Affd, it seems, 
in 56 If. Y. 000, but no opinion. 

T. Speis, 5 Hun, 00. Further action in 

73 N. Y. 133. Decision in 5 Hun, qualified 
(Remedy for misjoinder) in Harris v. El- 
dridge, 5 Abb. If. C. 278, 280. 
Bartow v. People, 18 Bun, 22. Rev'd in 78 
JST. Y. 377. Decision in 78 IT. Y. disting'd 
(Liability of bank for deposit received by 
officer who is officer of another institution) 
in Fiskkill Sav'gs Inst. v. Bostwick, 92 If. 
Y. 564. 
Bascoin v. Albertson, 34 If. Y. 584. Atf'g 
Bascom v. Nichols, 5 Red/. 340. See Shot- 
well B. Mott ; Tucker «. Rector, &c. of St. 
Clements' Church; Williams v. Williams. 
Explained and applied (Charitable uscs^ in 
Holmes v. Mead, 52 If. Y. 332, 338. Fol- 
lowed in White «. Howard, 52 Barb. 310 ; 
Gram v. Prussia, &c. Society, 36 If. Y. 162; 
Matter of Abbott, 3 Red/. 305. Explained 
in Church of Redemption v. Grace Church, 
6 Hun, 171. Explained as not overruling 
Williams ». Williams. 8 If. Y. 525,— in 
Power v. Cassidy, 10 Hun, 303. Collated, 
with other cases, in CerardTitles to Real Est. 

2 ed. 304. Discussed in 2 Perry dn Trusts, 

3 cd. § 748,- n. Commented upon in 3 
Washb. on P. P. 4 ed. 18, n. Applied 
(Devises to corporations) in Currin v. Fan- 
ning, 13 Bun, 472. Followed in Chamber- 
lain v. Chamberlain, 3 Lans. 353, which 
was, however, rev'd on this point in 43 
If. Y. 434, which see. Followed (Effect of 
L. 1860, c. 360, regulating charitable, &c. be- 
quests) in Curran v. Sears, 2 Redf. 52G, 539. 

Y. Nichols. See Bascom v. Albertson. 

Baskin v. Baskin. 48 Barb. 200. Aft'd in 30 
Jf. Y. 416. Decision in 36 IT. Y. explained 
and disting'd (Sufficiency of execution and 
attestation of will) iu Hewitt ■B.Hewitt,5 Redf. 
201, 275. Followed in Tavlor u. Brodhcad, 5 
Redf. 624. Disting"d in Mitchell i\ Mitchell, 
16 Hun. 97, 100 ; Sisters of Charity v. Kelly, 
67 N. Y. 413. Approved with Gilbert v. 
Knox, 52 Id. 125, iu Ludlow ». Ludlow, 8 
Stew. (If. J.) 480 ; s. c, 14 Reporter, 790. 
Cited and considered with Chaffee v. Bap- 
tist Missionary Convention, 10 Paige, 85 ; in 
llaynes v. Haynes, 33 Ohio St. 59S; s. c, 
31 Am. R. 579, 581. 



54 



BASKINS— BATES. 



Baskins t. Shannon, 3 JV. T. 310. Cited, 
(Proof to show that chattel mortgage was 
given in good faith) in Wray «. Fedderke, 
43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 335. 

BasST. Comstock, 30 How. Pr. 382. Addi- 
tional opinion by Olebke, J., in 38 JV. Y. 
21, which was disting'd (Demurrer to com- 
plaint containing different causes of action) 
in Goldberg v. Utley, 60 JV. Y. 427, 429. 

v. White, 7 Lans. 171. Rev'd in 65 

JV. Y. 565. Mem. of opinion. Explained 
(Payment and tender by vendee) in Benj. 
on Sales, § 709, n. f. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.) ; 
Id. § 1057, n. (Oorbin's 4 Am. ed). 

Basseit v. Bassett, 55 Barb. 505. Said, in 
6 Alb. L. J. 166, to have been aff'd by Ot. 

' of App., Sept. 12, 1871. 

v. Fish, 12 Hun, 209. Rev'd in 75 JV. Y. 

303. Decision in 75 JV Y. disting'd (Indi- 
vidual liability of members of a board) in 
Babcock v. Giftord, 29 Hun, 186; Donovan 
v. McAlpin, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 115. 
Followed, with Shaw «. Cock, 78 JV. Y. 194 
(Amendment by adding or striking out name 
of party) in N. Y. Monitor Milk Pan Assoc, v. 
Remington Agr. Works, 89 JV. Y. 22 ; which 
rev'd 25 Hun, 475, 481, which see. 

v. Lederer, 1 Hun, 274 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. 

Ct. (T. & C.) 671. Compare Gallup v.. Le- 
derer,- 1 Hun, 2S2; s. c, 3 Sup'm.. Ct. (T. & 
0.) 710. See to the contrary (Evidence of 
good character of agent, where evidence is 
circumstantial) Bigelow on Fr. 478. See 
Abb. Tr. Ee. 621. 

T. Spofford, 2 Daly, 432. Affd, in 45 

JV. Y. 387. Decision in 45 JV Y. followed 
(Goods, whether obtained by larceny or by 

- false pretenses) in Zink v. People, 6 Abb. 
JV. O. 413, 427. Followed (Right of owner 
of stolen property to follow it or it's pro- 
ceeds) in Newton «. Porter, 5 Lans. 424. 

Bassford, Matter of, 63 Barb. 101. Affd 
in 50 JV Y. 509. Decision in 50 JV Y. 
followed (Presumption as to regularity of 
assessment) in Matter of A-gnew, 4 Hun, 
439. Disting'd in Matter of Gantz, 85 JV. Y. 
536, 539. 

Bassil v. Elmore, 65 Barb. 627. Affd, as 
Bassell v. Elmore, 4S JV. Y. 561. 

Bastable v. City of Syracuse, 8 Hun, 587. 
Appeal dismissed, in 72 JV. Y. 64. Decision 
in 8 Han, disting'd (Causing surface water 
to flow on adjacent land) in Lynch v. Mayor, 
&e. of N. Y., 70 JV Y. 60, 62. 

Bntchelor v. Albany City Ins. Co., Abb. Pr. 
JV. S. 240. Collated (Reference — involving 
examination of long account) with other 
cases, in Hoffm. on Referees, 12. 

Batchellor v. Schuyler, 3 Hill, 386. On first 
point discussed in opinion, overruled, in 
effect, in People v. Schuyler, 4 JV Y. 17-5. 

Bate v. Graham, 11 K Y. 237. Applied 
(Action by creditor to set aside fraudulent 
conveyance) in Bates v. Bradley, 24 Hun, 
84, 86. Relied on in dissenting opinion in 
Dewey v. Moycr, 9 Hun, 491. Compared 
in Henderson v. Brooks, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 448. Dictum explained in Leonard v. 



Clinton, 26 Hun, 288. Applied '(Right of 
administrator to impeach fraudulent con- 
veyance made by intestate) in Barton .». 
Hosmer, 24 Hun, 467. Disting'd as in- 
applicable to real estate, in Phelps v. Piatt, 
50 Barb. 430 ; Chillingworth v. Freeman, 67 
Barb. 383. Applied (Right to equitable 
remedy) in Haines v. Meyer, 25 Hun, 414, 
417. Reviewed (Supplying defect in plead- 
ing) with other cases, in Bowdoin v. Coleman, 
3 Abb. Pr. JV S. 441. Disting'd in Tooker 
®. Arnoux, 76 JV Y. 400; Scoficld *>. 
Whitelegge, 49 JV. Y. 261. Applied in 
Cythe v. La Fontain, 51 Barb. 194. Dis- 
ting'd in Volkening v. De Graaf, 81 JV. 
Y. 272; Williams v. Birch, 6 Bosw. 677; 
Egert ii. Wicker, 10 Hon. Pr. 197. . Fol- 
lowed in Pratt v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21 
JV Y. 313; IIaddow«. Lundy, 59 JV. Y. 328. 

Bates v. Cherry Valley, &c. B. K Co., 3 
Sup'm. Ct. (T.&C.)16. Affd in 59 A?. Y. 
641, on opinion below. 

v. Conkling, 10 Wend. 389. Said, in 

Schindler v. Houston, 1 JV. Y. 261, 266, not 
to be authority as to delivery of goods. 

v. Coster, I.Hun, 400. .Followed (Dis- 
tinction between contracts of sale, and agree- 
ments for work and labor) in Kellogg vl 
Witherhead, 4 Hun, 273. Explained in 
Benj. on Sales, § 109, : n. y. (Bennett's 4 
Am. ed.). 

v. Delavan. See Van Eps v. Mayor, 

&c. of Schenectady. 

v. James, 3 Duer, 45. Disting'd and ex- 
plained (Nullity of execution) in. Wihebrch- 
er v. Johnson, 7 Abb. Pr. JV. 8 202. . 

v. Merrick, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. <ic ft) 701; 

s. c, 2 Hun, 568.. " . 

New Orleans, &c. R. E. Co., 13 How. 

Pr. 516; s. c.,A Abb. Pr. 72. Disapproved 
(Action against foreign corporation) . in 
Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Hoffman 
Steam Coal Co., 30 Barb. 159, 163 ; s, c, 20 
How. Pr. 62. See (Attachment — levy) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 648, n. 

v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cos. 238; s. e., 

1 JV Y. '■Com. L. Law. ed. 681, with brief 
note on the liability of stock for debts of 
shareholders. Explained (Transfer of stock) 
in Angell & A. on Corp. § 569, 11 ed. 
Approyed^in Sargent «... Franklin Ins. Co., 
8 Pich. {Mass.) 90; s. c, 19 Am. Dec.ZW, 
310. Applied (When money paid may be 
recovered) in Tutt o. Ide, 3 Blatchf. ft Ct. 
249, 252. . 

v. Relyea, 23 Wend. 336. Overruled 

(Validity of attachment against non-resi- 
dent) in Taylor v. Heath, 4 Ben. 592 ; Bennett 
i). Brown, 4 JV. Y. 254. Collated in Throop, 
Justice's Manual, 2 ed. 25. 

v. Bosekrans, 23 Htm. Pr. 98,. Affd in 

37 JV Y. 409; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 276. 
Decision in 37 JV. Y. followed (Defense, 
when not to be regarded as a counter- 
claim) in Simmons so. Kayser, 43 Suver. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 131. 

v. Tymason. 13 Wend. 300. Rev'd in 

Tymason v. Bates, 14 Id. 671. 



BATHGATE -BAXTER. 



i v. Underbill, 3 Red/. 365. Disapproved 

(Liability for acts of co-executor, &c.) in 
Ormiston v. Olcott, 84 JV. Y. 339, 346. Re- 
viewed, with Earle v. Earle, 48 Super. Ct. 
{J & S.) 18; Burt v, Burt, 41 JV. T. 46; 
Wood v. Brown, 34 Id. 343 ; Croft v. Wil- 
liams, 23 Hun, 102; Weetjen v. Vibbard, 5 
Id. 265; Paulding v. Marvin, 3 Id. 365, n.; 
People v. Townsend, 37 Barb. 520; Suther- 
land v. Brush, 7 Johns. Oh. 17 ; Monell v. 
Monell, 5 Id. 283 ; Kip v. Deniston, 4 Johns. 
23; Johnson v. Corbett, 11 Paige, 265; 
Clarke v. Clarke, 8 Id. 162 ; Banks «. Wil- 
kes, 3 Sandf. Ch. 99 ; Kirby v. Turner, Hoph. 
Gh. 309; in Lacey v. Davis. 5 Bed/. 301. 

Bathgate v. Haskin, 5 Daly, 361. Rev'd in 
59 JV. Y. 533. Further decision in 63 Id. 
261. See Stevens v. Veriane. Decision in 59 
JV. Y. followed (Running of statute of limit- 
ations against attorney's claim) in Gustine v. 
Williams, 23 Hun, 99, 101. Compare (Set- 
off) Seymour v. Dunham, 24 Hun. 93. 

Battell v. Burrill,' 10 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 97. 
Aff'd in 50 JV. Y. 13. 

v. Torrey, 65 JV Y. 294. Followed 

(Necessity for reference in case of sale of 

. property of insane person) in Matter of 

. Valentine, 3 Abb. JV. C. 285, 288. 

Battermann v. Finn, 34 How. Pr. 108. 
Opinion here given as opinion of court, is 
the dissenting opinion. Opinion of court re- 
ported in 32. How. Pr. 501. 

V. , 40 XT. Y. 340. See N. Y. & 

New Haven R. R. Co. «. Ketcham. Applied 
(Apoeal from order adjudging party guilty 
of contempt) in Carrington v. Florida R. R. 
Co., 52 JV 7. 583, 586. Disting'd, with 
N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Kelcham, 3 
Keyes, 24, in Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 JV. Y. 
44, 46. 

v. Pierce, 3 Hill, 171; s. c, 15 JV Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 553, with brief analy- 
sis of subsequent cases, citing this case. See 
Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Applied (Re- 
coupment) inBarthfl. Burt, 17 Abb. Pr. 354. 
Disting'd, in Cram v. Dresser, 2 Sandf. 120. 
Examined with McAllister v. Reab, 4 Wend. 
482; 8 Id. 109; Still ». Hall, 20 Id. 51, in 
Ward v. Fellers, 3 Mich. 288 ; citing Ives «. 
Van Epps, 22 Wend. 155; Nichols v. Dusen- 
bury, 2 JV Y. 283; Hinsdell v. Weed, 
5 Den. 172. Approved and applied, in 
Getty «. Roantree, 2 Pinn. (Wise.) 379; s. 
a, 2 Chand. 28; 54 Am. Dec. 138, with 
note. Followed, in Hill v. Southwick, 9 
R. I. 299; s. a, 11 An. R. 250. Followed 
(Parol proof of agreement) in Van Brunt ■». 
Day, 81 JV. Y. 251. Applied, in Unger v. 
Jacobs, 7 Hun, 223; Chnpin v. Dobson, 78 
JV. Y. 79. Disting'd in City of N. Y. v.- 
Price, 5 Sandf. 550. Explained, in Bull's 
Head Bk. v. Kohler, 1 City 0. 267. Ap- 
plied (Defense to action on note) in Al- 
laire Works v. Guion, 10 Barb. 57. Dis- 
ting'd in Carter v. Hamilton, 11 Barb. 151. 
Followed in McDonald v. Christie, 42 Barb. 
40 ; Gleason v. Moen, 2 Duer, 644. 

Batterson v. Sandford, 45 Super. Ct. {J. & 



S.) 127. . Followed (Affidavits on applica- 
tion for examination before trial) in Russ 
■e. Campbell, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 41. 

Battle v. Co it, 19 Barb. 68. Aff'd in 20 
JV. Y. 404. See Bolen v. Crosby. Decision 
in 26 JV. Y. thought, in Dintruff «. Critten 
den, 1 Sujfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 143, to be over 
ruled (Effect of transfer of evidence of right 
to debt) in Bolen v. Crosby, 49 JV. Y. 187. 

v. Rochester City Bank. 5 Barb. 414. 

Aff'd in 3 JV. Y. 88. Decision in 3 JV. V. 
cited and approved (Recovery back of money 
paid under contract) with Ketchum r. 
Evertson, 13 Johns. 359; Green v. Green, 
9 Cow. 47, in Wheeler v. Mather, 56 Jll. 241 ; 
s. c, 8 Am. R. 688, 685. Disting'd (Casj 
of contract to sell land) in Tice v. Zinsser, 
76 JV. Y. 549, 553. Decision in 5 Barb. 
collated with Gillett v. Maynard, 5 John'. 
85, and other cases, in Baston v. Clifford, 
68 III. 67; s. c, 18 Am. R. 547. 

Batty v. Carswell, 2 Johns. 48; s. c, 3 I\~. 
Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 295, with brief note. 
Applied (Authority under special power) in 
Wakefield v. Campbell, 20 Me. 393; s. c. 
37 Am. Dec. 60, 63, with note. Included 
in Lawson's Lead. Com. Law Cas. Simplified, 
139; 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 
653. 

Baulec v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 12 
Abb. Pr. JV. S. 310; s. c, 5 Lans. 436; 63 
Barb. 623. Aff'd in effect in 48 How. Pr. 
399; s. C, 59 JV. Y. 356. Decision in 59 
JV. Y. cited as authority (Liability of railroad 
company to employee for negligence of a co- 
employee) in Ohio & Mississippi R'way Co. 
■v. Collarn, 73 hid. 261, 273. 

Baum v. Clause, 5 Hill, 196. Compared and 
doubted (Effect of pardon) in 8 Am. L. Reg. 
JV S. 517. 

v. Mullen, 47 JV. Y. 577. Applied and 

disting'd with Rowe v. Smith, 45 Id. 233 
(Husband's liability for torts of wife) in 
Muser v. Lewis, 14 Abb. JV. C. 333. Ex- 
plained in Berrien v. Steel, 62 How. Pr. 
335, 336, n. Approved (Liability of mar- 
ried woman) in Cashman v. Henry, 75 JV. 
Y. 103. 

Bausinger v. Guenthner, 66 Barb. 186. 
Compare (Certificate of incorporation) Rais- 
beck v. Oesterricher, 4 Abb. JV. C. 444. 

Baxter v. Arnold, 9 Hoid. Pr. 445. Followed 
(Notice of motion, when equivalent to notice 
of retainer generally) in Dole v. Manley, 11 
How. Pr. 138. Disapproved (Variance 
between summons and complaint) in City of 
Fond Du Lac v. Bonesteel, 22 Wise. 251. 

v. Bell, 19 Hun, 367. Rev'd in 86 JV 

Y. 195. Decision in 86 JV. Y. disting'd 
(Effect of composition agreement) in Hadley 
Falls Nat. B'k v. May, 29 Hun, 404. 

v. Brake, 22 Hun, 565. Aff'd in 85 

JV. Y. 502. Decision in 85 JV Y. followed (Ar- 
rest in action on foreign judgment) in Carter 
■v. Hoffman, 2 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 328. 

v. Lansing, 7 Paige, 350. Approved 

(Negligence of solicitor as ground for set- 
ting aside a default) in Babcock v. Perry, 



56 



BAY— BEACH. 



4 Wise. 40; citing Millspaugh v. McBride, 7 
Paige, 50!t ; Tripp v. Vincent, 8 Id. 176. 

V. Missouri, K. & T. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 

630 ; s. c, more fully, in 67 Barb. 283. 
Followed (Attachment — examination of 
third person) in Glen Cove Starch M'f'g 
Co. v. Gotthold, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 366, n. 
Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 651. 

t. Putney, 37 Sow. Pr. 140. See Daw- 
son ». Horan. Overruled (Number of jury) 
in Knight v. Campbell, 62 Barb. 16, citing 
Dawson v. Horan, 51 Id. 459. See, also, 
to the contrary, Crouse v. Walrath, 41 
How. Pr. 86. 

v. Ryers, 13 Barb. 267. Opposed 

(Implication of covenant for quiet enjoy- 
ment in lease) in Mack v. Patchin, 29 How. 
Pr. 20. 

v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 3 Robt. 510; 

Barker t>. Savage, 1 Sweeny, 288. Approved 
(Rights of foot passengers in streets) 
in Belton v. Baxter, 33 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
182 ; Adolph v. Central Park, &c. R. R. Co., 
Id. 186. Reversal of Barker v. Savage, in 
45 Jf. Y. 191, explained in note to Belton 
v. Baxter, as not conflicting with latter 
case. 

v. Smaclt, 17 How. Pr. 183. Disting'd 

(Suit against guarantor pending fore- 
closure) in Schaaf v. O'Brien, 8 Daly, 181. 

v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co. See Das- 
comb v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co. 

Bay v. Coddinglon, 5 Johns. Ch. 54; s. c, 
9 Am. Dee. 268. Aff'd in 20 Johns. 637. 
See Coddington v. Bay: Grandin v. Leroy. 
See note to report in Am. Dee., in which its 
doctrine is said {Bona fide holder of negoti- 
able paper) to ' be favored in Bramhall v. 
Beckett, 31 Me. 205; Bailey v. Smith, 14 
Ohio St. 396 ; Garrard v. Pittsburgh, &c. 
R. R. Co., 29 Pa. St. 154; Bowman v. "Van 
Kuren, 29 Wise. 209. Re-affd in Law- 
rence v. Clark, 36 N. Y. 129. ■ Applied to 
transferee of stock, in Weaver «. Barden, 
49 N. Y. 294. Applied to transferee of 
goods in Barnard v. Campbell, 58 A 7 ". Y. 
77. Approved in Farrington ». Frankfort 
Bank, 31 Barb. 183; Cook v. Helms, 5 
Wise. 110; Reddick v. Jones, 6 Ired. L. 
(AT. C.) 107; s. c, 44 Am. Dee. 68, with 
note. Cited and discussed in Bank of 
Mobile*. Hall, 6 Ala. 639; s. c, 41 Am. 
Dec. 72, with note. Criticised in Maitland 
v. Citizen's Nat'l B'k of Baltimore, 40 Md. 
540; s. c, 17 Am. R. 620, 628, as contrary 
to weight of authority. Criticised at length, 
with Wardell v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170 ; Rosa 
*. Brotherson, 10 Id. 85; Root v. French, 
13 Id. 570; Payne v. Cutler, Id. C05; 
Dickerson v. Tillinghast, 4 Paige Ch. 215, 
222 ; Fulton Bank v. Phoenix Bank, 1 Ball, 
562; Driggs v. Rockwell, 11 Wend. 509; 
Morton*. Rogers, 14 Id. 575, in Brush v. 
Scribner, 11 Conn. 388; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 
303, 317, 319. Reviewed with Stalker v. 
McDonald, 6 Hill, 93, the cases on both 
sides of this question being contrasted and 
the contrary rule urged in 5 Ky. L. Rep. 



& J. 412, 413. Included in t Ames Case* 
on B. & N. 631 ; Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 
460. Discussed in Id. 497. Also included 
in Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Ex. 165. 
Collated, with other cases, in 2 Hare & W. 
Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 223. Discussed in 3 
Kent Com. 81 ; also Id. 81, n. b. 

t. Tallmadge, 5 Johns. Ch. 305-315. 

Disapproved (Effect of judgment against 
principal and surety) in M. & M. Bank v. 
Bank of Pa., 7 Watts & S. {Pa.) 335; s. c, 
42 Am. Dee. 240-244, with note. 

Bayard, Matter of, 61 How. Pr. 294. Dis- 
ting'd (Extent of power of recorder of 
Cohoes to punish) in Matter of Coughlin, 
62 How. Pr. 34, 36; Matter of Trimble, 62 
How. Pr. 61, 63. Cited as an interesting 
decision in 24 Alb. L. J. 21. 

Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. 450. Though 
said to be overruled by Storm *. Davenport, 
1 Sandf. Ch. 135 ; Brownell v. Curtis, 10 
Paige, 210, is cited as authority (Action by 
assignee for creditors to set aside fraudulent 
transfer) in Pillsbury v. Kingon, 33 K J. 
Eq. (6 Stew.) 287; s. c, 36 Am. R 556, 
the cases of Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 547 ; 
Osborne v. Moss, 7 Johns. 161 ; s. c, 5 
Am. Dec. 252, being disting'd. Collated, 
with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. 
§ 170. Disapproved (Power of chancery 
to aid creditor) in Creswell *. Smith, 2 
Tenn. Ch. 416, 421. Compare note to 
Donovan *. Finn, 14 Am. Dee. 531, and to 
Tolles *. Wood, 16 Abb. N.C.I. 

v. Malcom, 1 Johns. 453. Rev'd in 2 

Johns. 550; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 450, with note 
wherein it is shown have been confirmed 
(Pleading fraud or deceit) in Ross v. Mather, 
51 JST. Y. 114; Thomas v Beebe, 25 -K Y. 
249. See Mumford v. McPherson. 

v. Smith, 17 Wend. 88. Explained (Ne- 
cessity for reference to statute in action for 
damages given by statute) in Palmer *. 
York Bank, 18 Me. 166 ; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 
710. 

Bayland v. City of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 27. 
Followed and approved (Liability of muni- 
cipal corporation for injury caused by vio- 
lence, &c, of individuals) in Campbells' 
Adtn'x v. City Council of Montgomery, 53 
Ala. 527; s. c, 25 Am. R 656, 659. 

Bayley v. Onondaga Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Hill, 
476. Applied to case of devise to trustees 
in Curran *. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 532. 

Baylis v. Scudder, 6 Han, 300. Aff'd, it 
seems, in 67 N. Y. 600, but no opinion. 

Bayliss v. Cockroft, 8 Weekly Dig. 153. 
Aff'd, in 81 K Y. 363. 

Beach v. Allen, 7 Hun, 441. See, to the con- 
trary (Payment) Orr *. Jackson, 1 III. 
App. 439. See, also, Abb. Tr. Ev. 810. 

v. Bay State Co., 27 Barb. 248; s. c, 16 

How. Pr. 1; more fully, 6 Abb. Pr. 415. 
Rev'd in 10 Id. 71; s. c, 30 Barb. 433; 18 
How. Pr. 335. See Vanderwerken v. N. Y. 
& N. Haven R. R. Co. 

v. Beach, .2 Hill, 260. Applied (Interest 

of husband in action of slander for words 



BEACH— BEACHAM. 



57 



spoken of his wife) in Gibson v. Gibson, 43 
Wise. 23; s. c, 28 Am. P. 527. 

v. Bowery Ins. Co. See Herkimer v. 

Rice. 

v. Bradley, 8 Paige, 146. Explained 

(Necessity for joining a lunatic with his 
committee as a party in a suit affecting his 
real estate) in Gorham v. Gorham, 3 Barb. 
Ch. 24, 39. 

— — v. Child, 13 Wend. 343. Aff'd in 22 
Id. 558. 

v. Cooke, 39 Barb. 360. AfTd in 28 

N. Y. 508. Decision in 28 N. Y. disting'd 
and explained (Power of general term as to 
rendering judgment on appeal), in Cuff v. 
Dorland, 57 JST. Y. 560, 565. 

■ T. Crain, 2 Barb. 120. Aff'd in 2 If. 

F. 86; s. c, 49 Am. Dee. 369, with note. 
Decision in 2 If. Y. disting'd (Recovery for 
breach of continuing covenant) in Schell v. 
Plumb, 55 If. Y. 592, 598; Jex v. Jacob, 
19 Sun, 111 ; Reformed Prot. Dutch Church 
of Westfield v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191. Dis- 
• ting'd and explained in Shaffer v. Lee, 8 
s Barb. 412. Followed in Turner v. Had- 
den, 62 Barb. 482. Applied (Covenant to 
repair) in Myers v. Burns, 33 Barb. 406. 
Explained in Flynn v. Hatton, 43 Sow. Pr. 
350. Included in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 
493. Collated with other cases (Private 
rights of way) in Moalis UhderhiWs Torts, 
1 Am. ed. 495. 

v. Endless, 51 Barb. 570. Disting'd 

(Cancellation of obligation) in Roe v. Con- 
way, 74 If. Y. 201, 206. 

v. Fulton Bank, 7 Cow. 485. Followed 

(Liability of corporation for conversion) in 
Fishkill Sav'gs Inst. v. National Bk. of Fish- 
kill, 80 If. Y. 162, 170. 

v. , 3 Wend. 573. Discussed (As- 
signment for benefit of creditors — doubtful 
and disputed claims), in Burrill on Assign. 
§ 428, 4 ed. Approved (Defendants con- 
fined to grounds set up in answer) in Van 
Dyke v. Davis, 2 Mich. 150. 

. t. Fnrman, 9 Johns. 229. Disting'd 

(Power of justice to inquire into legality 
of assessment under 2 R. L. 272, § 9) from 
powers under 1 £. S. 510, § 42, in Rine- 
hart v. Young, 2 Lans. 354. 

v. Gray, 2 Den. 84. Examined and qual- 
ified (Recovery for use and occupation) in 
Hoffman v. Delihanty, 13 Abb. Pr. 388, 
392. 

■ v. Gregory, 2 Abb. Pr. 203. AfFd in 

3 Id. 78; s. c, as Beach ». Raymond, 1 
Hilt. 201. Opposed (Time to file excep- 
tions) in Bortle ■». Mellen, 14 Abb. Pr. 228. 
Approved (Effect of death of party) in 
Adams t>. Nellis, 59 How. Pr. 389. 

■ y. Hollister, 3 Hun, 519; s. c, more 

fully, 5 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 568. See 
Goelet v. Gori. Disapproved (Effect of 
married woman's acts on tenancy by entire- 
ty) by Danfohth, Rapam,o and Mili.ek, JJ., 
in Meeker v. Wright, 76 If. Y. 262, 270. 

■ Collated, with Rogers v. Benson, 5 Johns. 
437; Jackson v. Stevens, 16 Johns. 110; 



Goelet t. Gori, 31 Barb. 314; Farmers' Bank 
v. Gregory, 49 Id. 155; Miller v. Miller, 9 
Abb. Pr. 2f. S. 448; Freeman v. Barber, 3 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 575, and other cases 
(Effect of conveyance to husband and wife) 
in 26 Am. P. 65, n. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 3 Abb. If. C. 

113. Revd in 14 Hun, 79; s. c, 4 Abb. 
N. C. 236. Decision in 14 Sun approved 
(Affidavit for examination before trial) in 
dissenting opinion of Dykman, .T., in 
Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Sun, 168. Disting'd. 
with Chapin v. Thompson, 16 Sun, 53; 
Crooke v. Corbin, 23 Id. 176, in Fogg v. 
Fisk, 30 Sun, 61. 

v. Nixon, 9 If. Y. 35. Collated (Estates 

on condition and conditional limitations), 
with other cases, in MeAdam Landl. & T. 
2 ed. § 27. Collated (Summary proceedings) 
with other cases, in Id. § 260. 

T. Ranney, 2 Sill, 309. Followed 

with Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 If. Y. 54, and 
other cases (Slander — damages) in Gough v. 
Goldsmith, 44 Wis. 262; s. c, 28 Am. P. 
579, 581. Explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 
177, n. r. Collated, with other cases, in 1 
Sare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 120. 
— v. Raritan, &c. B. B. Co., 37 If. Y. 
457. See Beach v. Roberts. Disting'd 
(Proof of price paid, as evidence of value) 
in Jones «. Morgan, 24 Sun, 373, which 
was affd in 90 If. Y. 4, which see. Cited 
(Insulated telegram not proof of contract) in 
1 Whart. Com. on En. § G17. Cited (Parol 
proof of written proposal, accepted by parol) 
in 2 Id. § 1016. 

r- v. Raymond. See Beach v. Gregory. 

Explained (Amendment of case) in O'Gor- 
man v. Kamak, 5 Daly, 517, 519. 

v. Reynolds, 64 Barb. 506. Aff'd in 53 

If. Y. 1. Decision in 53 If. Y. followed 
(Revival of action) in Sober «. Fargo, 47. 
Sow. Pr. 288. Disting'd in Greene v. 
Martine, 21 Sun, 136, 138. Followed in 
Stewart v. James, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 
366. Disting'd in Evans ». Cleveland, 72 
N. Y. 486, 490. Explained in Coit v. Camp- 
bell, 82 If. Y. 509, 513. Compare Code 
Civ. Pro. % 544, 757. 

t. Smith, 28 Barb. 254. AfTd in 30 

If. Y. 116. See Jenkins ». Union Turnpike 
Co. Explained and applied (Payment of 
stock subscription) in Excelsior Grain 
Binding Co. ■». Stayner, 25 San, 91, 94, 96; 
s. c, 61 Sow. Pr. 456, 459, 462. Disting'd 
in Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 367. 
Collated with other cases (Calls for subscrip- 
tion) in 1 Pedf. Am. Bailw. Cases, 198. 

v. Southworth, 6 Barb. 173. Followed 

(Power of court to amend defective under- 
taking) in Bellinger v. Gardiner, 12 Sow, 
Pr. 381. 
— - v. Wise, 1 Sill, 612. Not followed 
(Declarations of former owner of chose in 
action) in Williams v. Judy, 3 Gilm. {111.) 
282; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 699, 701. 
Beacham v. Eckford. 2 Sandf. Ch. 116. See 
Johnson v. Ilartshorne. Followed and 



58 



BEADLE— BEARDSLEE. 



approved (Allowance of interest in taking 
partnership accounts) in Johnson v. Harts- 
home, 52 N.Y. 173; Buckingham?). Ludlura, 
29 K J. Eq. 350; Gyger's Appeal, 62 Pa. 
73 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 382, the case of Stoughton 
v. Lynch, 2 Johns. Ch. 209, being criticised 
as differing from rule in Dexter v. Arnold, 
3 Mason, 289. Commented upon in i 
Colly er on Partn. % 351, Wood's Am. ed. 

Beadle v. Chenango Mutual Ins Co. See 
Baker ». Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. 

Beal v. Finch, 11 N. Y. 128. Explained 
(Defendant as witness for co-defendant) in 
. Blodgett v. Morris, 14 K Y. 482. Com- 
mented on in Montfort «. Hughes, 3 E. D. 
■ Smith, 595. Criticised but followed in 
Lefever v. Brigham, 10 How. Pr. 385, 
. where, however, the practice suggested in 
Beal v. Finch, as to receiving testimony of 
parties de bene esse in doubtful cases, is con- 
demned. Explained, as ruling only upon the 
. admissibility of the witness, in Dean v. 
. Thornton, 13 K Y. 266. 

Beale v. Hayes, 5 Sandf. 640. Discussed 
(Liquidated damages) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 
, 161, n. h. 

v. Parish, 24 Barb. 243. Bev' d in 20 

:N..Y. 407.. Decision in 20 N. Y. included 
i (Service of notice of protest) in 2 Ames Cases 
on B. & N. 411. 

Beales v. Finch, 9 How. Pr. 385; s. c, more 
fully, 11 N. Y. 128. 

Beats v. Allen, 18 Johns. 363; s. c, 9 Am. 
Lee. 221, with. note. See Haggerty v. Wil- 
ber. Applied (Authority of special agent) 
in Mangum ». Ball, 43 Miss. 288; s. c, 5 
Am. P. 488. 

v. Benjamin, 29 How. Pr. 101. See, to 

the contrary (Time of application for extra 
. allowance) Clarke v. City of Rochester, 29 
How. Pr. 97. 

. v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurnn, 1 E. 

D. Smith, 654. Superseded with. . Conklin 
. «. Wood, 3 Id. 662 (Correcting errors in no- 
tice of mechanic's lien) Hubbell v. Schreyer, 
15 ^466. Pr. N. S. 304, being followed, 
and McElwee v. Sanfor^, 58 How. Pr. 89, 
not followed in . Leiegne.*. Schwarzler, 10 
Daly, 547. Applied (Defective notice of 
lien) in Donnelly v. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 259, 
275. 

v. Home Ins. Co., 36 Bark 614. Affd 

iu 36 K Y. 522. 

v. Guernsey, 8 Johns. 446; s. c, 5 Am. 

Dec. 348, with note, containing citations. 
See Barrow ». Paxton ; Fullerton v. Viall. 
Reviewed and applied (Retention of pos- 
session by vendor) with Sturtevant v. Bal- 
lard, 9 Johns. 337; s. c, 6 Am. Dee. 281, 
with note ; Dickenson ». Cook, 17 Johns. 334; 
Ludlow «. Hurd, 19 Id. 218; Bissell v. 
Hopkins, 3 Cow. 166; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 
259, in Callen v. Thompson, 3 Yerg, (Tenn.) 
475 ; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 587, with note. 
Approved (Purchase by one having notice of 
judgment) in Wickham v. Miller, 12 Johns. 
324. 

v. Peck, 12 Barb. 245. Reported below, 



in 9 -ST. Y. Leg. ' Obs. 226. Approved and 
followed (Sufficient notice of dishonor) in 
Youngs v. Lee, 18. Barb. 187. . - 

v. Stewart, 6 Lans. 408, See Marshall 

v. Peters. See also (Rights in pond), Myer- 
v. Whitaker, 5 Abb. N. C. 172. 

Beamish v. Hoyt, 2 Robt. 307. Collated 
(Estate by curtesy — how affected by statute) 
with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. Cases on 
Real Prop. 2.89. .See Matter of Winne, 1 
Lans. 508,522, which was rev'd in 2 Lans. 21. 

Beams, Mattel* of, 17 How. Pr. 459. Seein- 
accord therewith (Effect of ordinance of 
common council passed by one board in one 
. year and concurred in by another board in 
a succeeding year) Matter of Beekman, 19 
How. Pr. 518. Followed (Application of- 
statute to assessments made prior to its pas- 
sage) in Matter of Treacy, 59 Barb. 525. 

Bean v. Edge, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 455. 
Aff'd in 84 N. Y. 510. 

y. Petting-Hl, 2 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 58. 

Aff'd in 7 Robt. 7. 

v. Reitway, 17 How. Pr. 90 ; s. c, as 

Bean v. Wells, 28 Barb. 466. 

Bear v. Snyder, 11 Wend. 592. See Reynolds i>. 
Reynolds. Compare to the contrary (Dower) 
Dunham v. Osborn, 1 Paige, 634 ; Reynolds 
v. Reynolds, 5 Id. 161; Saffordu. Safford, 7 
Id. 259; Matter of Cregier, 1 Barb. Ch. 
598. Commented upon (Dower upon dower) 
in Sharsw. & B. Cases on Real Prop. 318. 
Commented upon in Washb. on Real. Pvop.- 

■ 4 ed. 259, n. Referred to in Tyler Inf. & 
Gov. 2 ed. § 284, as overruled by Matter of 
Cregier. 

Beard v. City of Brooklyn, 31 Barb. 142. 
Disting'd (Negligent omission to collect 
assessment) in Richardson v. City of Brook- 
lyn, 34 Barb. 569, 577. 

v. Sinnott, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 51. 

Another decision in 38 Id. 536. 

v. Yates, 1 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) Add. 

21, Further decision in 2 Hun, 466; s. c, 
5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 76. 

Beards v. Wheeler. 11 Hun, 539. Appeal- 
dismissed in 76 K Y. 213. Decision in 76 
iV". Y. explained as not authority against 
general tqrm's reviewing discretion in Rogers 
v. Ivers, 23 Htm, 424, 428. 

Beardslee v. Beardslee, 5 Barb, 324. Dis- 
cussed (Dower— eviction of husband during 
coverture by title. paramount, or entry for 
breach of condition) in 1 Washb. on Real P. 
4 ed. 257. 

v. Richardson, 11 Wend. 25; s. c, 11 

A\ Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1009, with brief 
note ; s. c. 25 Am. Dec. 596, with note. 
Followed with Lamb v. Camden & Amboy 
R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 271 (Proof of bailee's 
negligence) in Wilson v. Southern Pacific 
R. R. Co., 62 Cat. 164. Applied in Beck- 
man v. Shousn, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 179; s. c, 28 
Am. Dec. 653, 656,, with note. Discussed 
in Ang. on Can: § 38, 5 ed. Cited, with 
other authorities, in 1 Tayl. on Ev. 529, as 
showing extreme application of doctrine of 
res gestm. 



BEAKDSLEY— BECK. 



59 



Beardsley v. Dickerson, iHoio. Pr. 81. See 
Barnard «. Wheeler. Explained (Time of 
motion to change place of trial) with Myers 
v. Feeter, Id. 240; Schenck v. McKie, Id. 
246, in Mixer «. Kuhu, Id. 409 ; s. c, 3 
Code R. 106. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
986, 7i. 

v. Maj liard, 4 Wend. 336. Affd in 7 

7<Z. 560. 

v. Ontario Bank, 31 Barb. 619. Fol- 

, lowed (Rolling-stock personal property) in 
Baudall o. Elwell, 52 2V. K 521, 525. 

- — .v. Root, 11 JoA/i.s. 464; s. c, 6 Am. 
Dee. 386, with note, where it is said to have 
. been extensively recognized, as an authority. 
Cited with Williams v. Walker, 2 Sandy. Ch. 
535 ; Clark *. Richards, 3 K B. Smith, 89 
(Attorney when not authorized to bind 
his client) in Whart. Com. on Ag. §§ 581, 
582. 

v. Warner, 6 Wend. 610. Affd in 8 Id. 

194. . See Trimble v. Thorne. Decision iii 
6 Wend, followed ( Discharge of surety by fail- 
ure to sue principal) in Bullit v. Thatcher, 5 

' How. (Miss.) 689; s. c.,'37^1m. Bee. 175, 177, 
as to application of rule in Pain v. Packard, 

• 13 Johns. 144; s. c, 7 Am. Bee. 369, with 
note, and King v. Baldwin, 17 Id. 384 ; 
s. c, 8 Am. Bee. 415, with note. 

Beardsley Scythe Co. v. Foster, 36 K'Y. 

561. Followed (Parties to action to reach 

- property fraudulently disposed of) in Miller 

. ». Hall, 4Q Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 262, 268. 
Re-afFd (Creditor, when entitled to equitable 
remedy to reach assets) in Adee v. Bigler, 81 

i N.Y. 351. 

Beams v. Columbian Ins. Co., 48 Barb. 445. 
Explained and disting'd (Warranties in time 
policies of insurance) in Snow v. Columbian 

: Ins. Co., Id. 469. 

v. Gould, 8 Baly, 384. Aft'd in 77 

If. Y. 455. Mem. of another proceeding in 
77 Id. 595. Further proceeding in 81 JV. Y. 

■ 228 reported as Fisher v. Gould. 

Bearss v. Copley. See Tinney v. N. J. 

■ Steamboat Co. 

Seattle, Matter of, If. Y. Baily Beg.< Jan. 

\ 12, 1880. See Merrill v. Townsend. Said 
to be imperfectly reported, and disting'd 
(Enforcing executor's contract) in Bulkley v. 
Staats, 4 Bed/. 524, 520. 

Beattie v. Niagara Sav'gs B'k, 41 How. Pr. 
137. Overruled (Vacating of order for 
hearing case and exceptions) in Post ■». 
Hathorn, 54 K Y. 147, 150. 

Beatty v. Marine Ins Co.," 2 Johns. 109 ; s. c, 
3 Am. Bee. 401. Explained (Private corpor- 
ation — making contract; in Aug. & A. on 

- Corp. § 279, 11 ed. 

v. Myers, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 456; 

s. c, 4 Hun, 266. Followed (Appeal in 
cases originating in county court) in Tall- 
man v. American Exp. Co., 6 Hun, 377. 

v. Perkins, 6 Wend. 382. Disting'd 

(Trespass for the wrongful use of legal pro- 
cess) in Brcck v. Blanehard, 20 If. II. 323 ; 
s. c, 51 Am. Bee. 222, 224, with note. Dis- 
sented from in Chipman v. Bates, 15 Vt. 60. 



Applied in Day v. ■ Bach, 46 . Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 460, 465. 

Beavers v. Lane, 6 Duer, 232, See Steel- 
yards v. Singer. Authorities collected 
(Validity of conditional sale as to third per- 
sons) in Lewis v. McCabe, 49 Conn. 141 ; 
s. c, 21 Am. Law Beg. If. S. 217, with ex- 
tended note. 

Bebee v. B'k of N. V.. 1 Johns. 529; s. c, 
3 Am. Bee. 353, with note, wherein it is 
shown to have been fully accepted by the 
K. Y. courts as an authority respecting the" 
rights pf an assignee, and is said to have 
been particularly noticed by chancery courts 
on the subject of relief under a general 
prayer. Opinions of Spencer and Tompkins, 
JJ., approved (Rights of assignee of chose in 
action) in Trustees of Union College v. 
Wheeler, 61 If. Y. 88, 105. Opinion of 
Kent, Ch., as to distinction between latent 
equities and equities of the obligor referred 
to as overruled, — in Thomas on M. 106, 
citing Bush v. Lathrop, 22 If. Y. 535. 

v. People. See People v. Rathbun. 

Bebinger v. Sweet, 6 Hun, 478 ; fully 
reported 1 Abb. N. C. 263. Not an action 
for malicious prosecution, but sui generis, 
the abuse of process being' alleged as part 
of a concerted scheme of fraud. .Disting'd 
(What amounts to abuse of process) in 
Buffalo Labricating Oil Co. v. Everest, 30 
Hun, 586. 

Becar v. Flues, 64 If. Y. 518. Followed 
(Validity of lease) in Whiting v. Ohlert, 52 
Mich. 462. 

Been y. Buggies. 6 Abb. If. C. 69. Followed 
(Actions to foreclose mortgages not to be 
consolidated) in Kipp v. Delamater, 58 
How. Pr. 183, 184. 

Beck v. Allison, 4 -Baly, 421. Rev'd in 56 
N. Y, 366; s. c, 15 Am. R. 430'. 
Decision in 56 If. Y. applied, -with Murtha, 
v. Curley, 00 A 7 ! Y-. 377 (Demand for relief 
as criterion of cause of action) in Marie v. 
Garrison, 13 Abb. If. C. 210, 318. 

v. Bnrdett, 1 Paige, 305. Explained 

(Reservations in favor of debtor making 
assignment for creditors") in Burrill on As- 
■ sign. ■ § 207, n. 3, 4 ed. A pproved ' (Lieu 
created by execution) in Stewart v. Beale, 7 
Hun, 305. 

y. Carter, 6 Hun, 604. Affd in 68 

JV. Y. 283; s. c, 23 Am. It. 175, with note. 
Decision ■ in 68 If. Y. cited, with other au- 
thorities (Excavation of land adjoining 
public highway) in Hayes ». Michigan 
Cent. R. R. Co., Ill U. S. 236, as being 
consistent with the rule said to be generally 
adopted in this country as well as England. 
Applied in Graves v. Thomas, 95 Ind. 361; 
s. c, 48 Am. B. 727. 

v.. East River Ferry Co., 6 Bobt. 82. 

See Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co. 
Disting'd (Contributory negligence -of -third 
person) in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. 
R. R. Co., 6(3 N. Y. 13; Platz v. City of 
Cohoes, 24 Hun, 101, 103. Followed in 
Brcnk v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 5 



60 



BECK— BEEBE. 



Daly, 454, 457. Compared, with other 
cases, in 13 Cent. L. J. 387. 

v. McGtillis, 9 Barb. 35. Quoted and 

collated (Effect of agreement to sell lands 
devised in will), with other cases, in 2 Hare 
& W. Am. Lead. Cos. 5 ed. 537. Applied 
(Ademption of bequests for payment of 
money) in Abernethy v. Catlin, 2 Dem.. 341. 

v. Stepliaui. See Hornfager v. Horn- 

fager. 

Becker, Ex parte, 4 Hill, 613. Relied on 
(Statutory proceedings, when not invalidated 
by slight irregularities) in Oolraan v. Shat- 
tuck, 2 Hun, 497. 

Becker v. Boon, 61 JSf. Y. 317. Approved 
(Tender before suit — when available) in 
1 Am. Dec. 24, n., as correctly stating the 
rule. Disting'd (Award — when void for 
uncertainty) in Cutter v. Cutter, 48 Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 470. 

v. Hager, 8 How. Pr. 68. See (Service 

' on attorney) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 799, n. 

V. Hallgarten, 86 W. Y. 1G7. Explained 

(Stoppage in transitu) in Benj. on Sales, § 
847, n. n. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Also in 2 
Id. § 1286, n. 27 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. Howard, 47 How. Pr. 423. Rev'd in 

4 Hun, 359; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
603, that aff'd in 66 XT. Y. 5. See (Notice 
of lis pendens — effect of) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 1671, n. 

v. People, 18 N. Y. 487. Commented 

on (Writ of error and appeals — effect of L. 
1859, c. 174, as to mandamus) in People ». 
Church, 20 Id. 529, 530. 

v. Torrance, 31 K Y. 631-643. Dis- 
cussed (Creditor enforcing debtor's agree- 
ment with third persons) in Wait on Iraud. 
Conv. § 43, n. 2. 

Beckett v. Lawrence, 7 Abb. Pr. K S. 403. 
Compare (Partial defense) Code Civ. Pro. 
§508. 

Beekwith, Matter of, 3 Hun, 443; s. c, 6 
Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 13. See subsequent 
proceedings in Carter v. Beekwith, 82 N. Y. 
83; also in 87 N. Y. 503. Appeal dismissed 
in 90 K Y. 667. Compare (Costs) Code 
Civ. Pro. § 2336. 

Beekwith v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 64 Barb. 
299. Said in 9 Alb, L. J. 45, to have been 
rev'd in Court of Appeals, Nov. 1872. 

v. Smith, 4 Lans. 182. See (Ne exeat) 

' Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, n. 

v. Union Bank, 4- Sand/. 604. Aff'd 

in 9 N.Y. 211. See Coster ». Griswold. 
Decision in 9 N. Y. approved (Set-oft against 
assignee of insolvent) in Seymour v. Dun- 
ham, 24 Hun, 93. Collated with other cases 
in Bishop on Assign. § 318. 

■ v. Whalen, 5 Lans. 376. Rev'd in 65 

JV. Y. 322. Further decision in 9 Hun, 408, 
which was aff'd in 70 iV. Y. 430. Decision 
in 5 Lans. followed (Obligation upon two 
towns separated by creek, to build and 
maintain a bridge thereover) in Bryan v. 
Landon, 3 Hun, 502. Decision in 65 Jf. Y. 
disting'd in decision in 70 iV. Y. 

Beddoe v. Wadsworth, 21 Wend. 120. Fol- 



lowed (Action on covenant of warranty) in 
Moore v. Merrill, 17 N. H. 75; s. c, 43 
Am. Dec. 593-596, with note. Cited with 
Fowler v. Poling, 2 Barb. 306; Barb. 166, 
and other cases, as authorities in Wead v. 
Larkin, 54 III. 489; s. c, 5 Am. R. 149, 153. 
Limited and disting'd in Shattuck v. Lamb, 
65 N. Y. 505. Discussed and authorities 
collated (Covenants runn'ng with the land) 
in 2 Am. L. Beg. N. S. 209. 

Bedell v. Hoffman. 2 Paige, 200. Cited with 
other authorities (Principle of bills of inter- 
pleader) in McDonald v. Allen, 37 Wis. 108; 
s. c, 19 Am. E. 754. 

t. Long Island K. B. Co., 44 N. Y. 

367: s. c, 4 Am. E. 688. Collated (Neg- 
ligent emission of sparks from locomotive, 
engine with other cases, in note to Flynn v. 
San Fran. & San Jose R. R. Co., 40 Cal. 
14; s. c, G Am. E. 597. Collated (Opinions 
of experts as evidence) with Schmidt v. Her- 
ford, 5 Eobt. 145; Wcstlake v. St. Law- 
rence Mutual Ins. Co., 14 Barb. 206; Todd 
v. Warner, 48 How. Pr. 234, and many 
other cases, in note to Wood v. Barker, 22 
Am. L. Eeg. 323. 

v. Shaw, 59 K Y. 46. Quoted (Adverse 

possession) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. 
to Land. § 749, n. 2; Id. §§751, 755. Com- 
pare (Allowance for improvements) Code 
Civ. Pro. § 1531. 

v. Stnrta, 1 Bosw. 634; Cousland v. 

Davis, 4 Id. 620. Dissented from (Dis- 
charge from arrest) by Bakbouk, J., in Swift 
«. Wylie, 5 Eobt. 680, 692. 

Bedford v. Terhiine, 1 Daly, 471. Aff'd in 
30 N. Y. 453 ; s. c, with points of counsel, 
in 27 How. Pr. 422. Decision in 30 K Y. 
explained (Sublease and assignment) in Col- 
lins v. Hasbrouck, 56 JST. Y. 163. Re-affd 
and approved in Woodhull v. Rosenthal, 61 
JV! Y. 391. Followed in Constantine v. 
Wake, 1 Sweeny, 251. Authorities reviewed 
in 16 Am. L. Bev. 30. Quoted and ex- 
plained in 1 Waslib.- on Peal P. 513, 4 ed. 
Followed (Amendment at the trial) in Knapp 
v. Roche, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 395, 406. 

Beebe, Matter of, 20 Hun, 462. Disting'd 
(Proceedings to discover property) in Mat- 
ter of Currv, 25 Hun, 321. Followed in 
Matter of Rosenthal, 59 How. Pr. 327. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2706, n. 

Beebe v. Ayers, 28 Barb. 278. See Hamilton 
v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Approved 
(Rights of passenger who has stopped over) 
in Dietrich t>. Penn. R. R. Co., 71 Perm. St. 
432; s. c, 10 Am. E. 711, 718, with note. 

v. Bank of N. Y., 1 Johns. 529. See 

Stafford v. Van Rensselaer. Overruled, in 
part, with Murray v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 
441 ; Livingston v. Dean, Id. 479 ; James v. 
Morey, 2 Cow. 246 ; (Equity of assignee) in 
Bush v. Lathrop, 22 JST. Y. 53o, 539, 541. 
Explained and followed in Booth v. Farmers' 
& Mechanics' National Bank, 4 Lans. 301, 
308. 

v. Bull, 12 TTewZ..504; s. c, 27 Am. 

Dee. 100, with note, containing citations. 



BEEBE— BEEKMAN. 



61' 



v. Dowd, 22 Barb. 255. Followed (What 

matter may be set up In answer) in Itcimer 
®. Doerge, 61 Horn. Pr. 143. 

'■ T. Estabrook, 11 Ilun, 523. Affd in 

79 K Y. 246. 

— r- v. Hutton, 47. Barb. 187. See New 
Haven & Northampton Co. v. Quintard. 
Disapproved (Admissibility of unstamped 
instrument in evidence) in Sehermerhorn v. 
Burgess, 38 How. Pr. 123. Disapproved 
[citing Vorbeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. 302], in 
New Ilavea & Northampton Co. v. Quin- 
tard, 6 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 128; s. c. 37 How. 
Pr. 29. Commented on (Effect of act of 
Mar. 24, 1867) in Miller '«. Larmon, 38 
How. Pr. 417. See, however, People ex rel. 
Barbour r>. Gates, 43 If. Y. 40. Followed 
in Dailey v. Coker, 33 Tex. 815; s. c, 7 
Am. R. 279; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Arh. 
398; s. c, 7 Am. R. 623. Relied on with 
New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Quintard, 
37 Row. Pr. 28 ; Vorebeck *. Roe, 50 Barb. 
302; Howe v. Carpenter, 53 Id. 382, and 
other cases, in Rheinstrom v. Cone, 2G Wis. 
163; s. c, 7 Am. It. 48. 

v. Johnson, 19 Wend. 500. See 

Harmony v. Bingham; Oakley r>. Morton. 
Applied (Non-performance of express condi- 
tion in contract) in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut 
Life Ins., 82 If. Y. 543, 551. 

y. Kenyon, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 

271. See (Order for payment in supple- 
mentary proceedings) Code Cio. Pro. 1881, 
§ 2450, n. 

v. Mead, 33 If. 7. 587. Cited in Whart. 

Com. on Ag. § 766, as to the nature of a 
factor's lien. 

v. Pyle, 1 Abb. If. C. 412. Affd in 71 

If. Y. 20. Decision in 1 Abb. If. C. not fol- 
lowed (Effect of composition in bankruptcy) 
in Ilewes v. Rand, 129 Mass. 523. 

v. Robert, 12 Wend.ilS; s. c, 27 Am. 

Dec. 132, with note, containing citations. 
Reviewed and reconciled, with other N. 
Y. cases (Implied warranty on sale by sam- 
ple) in 32 Am. Dec. 439, n. See 27 Am. Dec. 
166, n. 

Beeclier v. Allen, 5 Barb. 109. Overruled 
in Kundolf v. Thalheimer, 12 K Y. 593, as 
to "cases," as used in If. Y. Const. 1846, 
art. 0, § 14, subd. 4, being synonymous with 
"actions." 

v. Conradt, 13 If. Y. 108. Explained 

(Contract —performance) in 2 Chitty on 
Contr. 1086, n. o, 11 Am. ed. Reported 
in 2 LangdelVs Cos. on Contr. 2 ed. 767. 

r. Crouse, 1 9 Wend. 306. See McDowl 

v. Charles. Followed (Guardian in socage) 
in Sylvester v. Ralston, 31 Barb. 286, 289. 
See McCray v. McCray, 30 Id. 633. Ex- 
plain! d (Action for intermeddling with rents 
and profits) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. 
to Land, § 1.96. 

Beeoker v. Beecker, 7 Johns. 99; s. c, 4 
N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 262, with brief 
note on devisees' liability for legacies. 
Also reported in 5 Am. Dec. 246, with note, 
containing citations. See Livingston v. 



Livingston. Explained with "Van Orden v. 
Van Orden, 10 Johns. 30; Tole v. Hardy, 6 
Cow. 333. as not preventing an action at law, 
—in Gridley v. Gridley, 24 If. Y. 130, 134.- 

v. Vrooman, 13 Johns. 302; Grant v. 

Button, 14 Id. 377. Reviewed, with other 
cases (Showing partial failure of considera- 
tion in mitigation of damages) in Peden -». 
Moore, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 71; s. c, 21 Am. 
Dee. 649. See also IS Am. Dec. 378, n. 

Beekman's Petition, 19 Abb. Pr. 245. Affd, 
but ground of decision in part overruled, in 1 
Abb. Pr. If. S. 449. 

Beekntan, Matter of. See Beams, Matter of. 

Beekmau v. Bemus, 7 Cow. 30. Rev'd in. 3 
Wend. 667. 

v. Bond, 19 Wend. 444. Overruled 

(Effect of retention of possession by vendor, 
&c.) in Smith v. Acker, 23 Id. 653. i 

v. Bonsor, 23 If. Y. 298, affg Beekman 

v. People, 27 Barb. 260. See argument of 
counsel in an appendix to 23 N. Y. See 
Downing v. Marshall; Shotwell v. Mott; 
Williams v. Williams. Decision in 23 If. Y. 
explained (Charitable uses) in Levy v. Levy, 
33 N. Y. 120. Followed in Bascom v. 
Albertson, 34 If. Y. 590; Clemens®. Clem- 
ens, 37 If. Y. 70 ; Heiss v. Murphy, 40 Wise. 
276; Pringle ■». Dorsey, 3 S. C. 502. Cited 
from in Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Penn. St. 465 ; 
s. c, 3 Am. li. 558. Quoted in 1 Jarm. 
on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 409, n. Com- 
mented upon in 3 Washb. on R. P. 4 ed. 
519", a. Collated with other cases in 
Gerard Titles to Real Est. 2 ed. 296 ; Id. 
303. Explained (Trustee — whether able to 
renounce) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 
259, n. 1. Limited (Power, when invalid 
as suspending power of alienation) in 
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 4 Hum, 287, 291. 
Applied in Garvey «. McDevitt, 11 LTun, 
461. Applied (Trust to receive rents and 
profits) in Verdin t>. Slocum, 9 Hun, 152. 
Applied (Bequest of residue, of residue) in 
Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 If. Y. 346. 

V. Frost, 18 Johns. 544; s. c, 9 Am. 

Dec. 246, with note, wherein it is referred 
to (Recording deeds) as similar to Terrell v. 
Andrew County, 44 Mo. 309, and contrary 
to Mims v. Mims, 35 Ala. 23. Compare 
Ilcister's Lessee ». Fortner, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 
40;" s. c, 4 Am. Dee. 417, with note. See 
Gelston v. Hoyt. Disting'd in Bishop v. 
Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; s. c, 2 Am. R. 533, 
530 ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. 
If. G. 381, 391. Reviewed in Sawyer v. 
Adams, 8 Verm. 172; s. c, 30 Am. Dec. 
459. 

v. Gibbs, 8 Paige, 511. Followed 

(Decree of sale in foreclosure) in Barnes «. 
Stoughton, 10 Hun, 14, 10. 

y. Hale, 17 Johns. 134. Sea Moakeley 

v. Riggs; Stafford v. Low. Collated with 
other cases (Consideration for guaranty), 
in' 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 102. 
Collated with other cases (Conditional guar- 
anty) in Id. 108. 

v. Kirk, 15 How. Pr. 228. See Moody 



0^ 



BEEKMAK— BEISIEGEL. 



0. Townsend. Followed (Statement of in- 
debtedness in confession of judgment) in 
Claflin v. Sanger, 31 Barb. 36; 

— — v. Lansing', 3 Wend. 446. Reviewed 
and. approved (Sufficiency of levy) in Quack- 
cnbush b. Henry, 42- Mich. 79; Camp v. 
Chamberlain, 5 Den. 198, being also relied 
. on. Disting'd in Rodgers v. Bonner. 55 
Bart. 9, 24. Explained (Notice of rent due, 
under 1 R. 8. 746, § 12) in Bussing v. Bush- 
. nell, 6 Hilt, 383. 

- — v. People, 27 Bark 260. Aff d as Beek- 
man v. Bonsor^ in 23 If. Y. 298. See Ayres 
v. Meth. Episc. Church. Decision in 27 

• Barb, sustained (Restrictions upon gifts by 
will to benevolent, &c. societies) and Law- 
rence n. Elliott, 3 Bed/.' 235, overruled, in 

. Stephenson v. Short, 92 If. Y. 433. 

t. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co., 

: 3 Pal 45; s. c, 22-^to. Dec. «79, with ex- 
tended note, wherein it is said to be re- 

■ garded as a leading authority. See Gardner 

, v. Trustees of Ncwburgh; Livingston «. 

. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Applied (Eminent 
domain) in Clarke v. City of Rochester, '5 

. Abb. Pr. 124: Cited as recognized in § 18 
of general, railroad act, in Ellicottville, &c. 
Plank Road Co. ■». Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 
20 Barb. 650. Followed in Bloodgood v. 

. Mohawk & H. R, R. Co., 14 Wend. 58; 
18 Id. 13; Hartwell v.- Armstrong, 19 Barb. 
169. Followed with Bloodgood v. Mohawk 
& Hudson R. R. Co., 14 Wend. 51 ; in White- 

i man's Exec'x u. Wilmington & ■ Susque- 
hanna R. R. Co., 2 Harr.(Del.)5U; s. c, 

• 33 Am. Dec. 411, 418, with note. Followed 
, with Varick. v.- Smith, 5 Paige, 159; Tay-- 
. lor d.: Porter, A Hill, 140; Matter of Albany 
i Street, 11 Wend. 149 ; in Witham v. Osburn, 
.4 Or. 318; s. c, 18 Am. B. 287. Referred 
. to in Stewart©. Supervisors of Polk County, 

•SO Iowa, 9; s. c, 1 Am. B. 238, 246,. 248, 
250, 251, 252, as the leading American case 

. on the subject Cited and criticised in 
Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac. R. 

. R. Co., 25 Wis. 167; s. c, 3 Am. B. 30, 38. 
Approved in West River Bridge Case, 6 
How. (JJ. S.) 507. Quoted in Couley on 
Const. Limita. 5 ed. 649, n. 1. Applied 
(What constitutes franchise, in Davis v. 
Mayor, &e. of-N. Y., 14 If.- Y. 523; Dela- 

• ware & Hudson C. Co. v.- Lawrence, 9 Hun, 
193. Disting'd (Evidence of public use) in 
Matter of Dcansvillo Cemetery Assoc, Giilf. 
Y. 572. Relied on (Extent of legislative con- 
trol over railroads) in Railroad Commr's v. 
Portland & Oxford Central R. R. Co., 63 
Me. 2G9; s. c, 18 Am. It. 208, 213. Fol- 
lowed as to compensation, in Livingston -». 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 8 Wend. 101. Followed 
and approved in Blake v. Winona & St. 
Peter R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418; s. c, 18 
Am. B. 345, 350. Quoted (Action for 
refusal by carrier to transport individual 
passenger) in Ang. on Garr. § 525, ji, 2, 
5 ed. 

v. Sntterlee, 5 Cow. 519. Commented 

on (Statute of limitations — judicial process) 



' in Angell on Limita. § 312, 6 ed. Qnes=- 
■ tioned, in Jackson v. Brooks, 14 Wend. 
649. 

Bookman Street, Matter of, 20 Johns, 269.- 
See Matter of Albany Street. Approved 
' With Stafford v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 7- 
Id. 541; Matter of Third Street. 6 Cow. 
571; Matter of Canal Street, ll Wend. 154; 
Matter of Mt. Morris Square, 2 Hill, 14, 
in Striker®. Kelly, 2 Den. 323, as to court 
acting as commissioners.- Said, in People v. 
Common Council of Syracuse, 20 How. Pr. 
491, 494, not to have been overruled, as to 
the power to discontinue, by later cases. 
Disting'd in Matter of Washington Park, 
56 If. Y. 144, 155. 

, 4 Bradf. 503, Collated (Rights of burial) 

. with other cases, in 21 Am. L. Reg. 512, re; 
Commented on (Legal control of dead body) 
as holding doctrine that prevails in most of 
the States, — in article by Francis King 
Carev on " The disposition of the Body 
afterDeath," 19 Am. L. Rev. 263. 

Beers', Ex parte. See Brinckerhoof «: Remseri. 

Bears v. Hendrickson, 6 Robt. 53. Modified 
in 45 N. Y. -665. See (Acknowledgment of - 
satisfaction of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 1260, n. 

v. Phoenix Glass Co. See Partridge *. 

r>. Badger. 

-^—^ t. Reynolds, 12 Bafb. 288. Affdiirll- 
N. Y. 97. 

- — t. Shannon, 12 Him, 161. Rev'd in 73 

; If. Y. 292. Decision in 73 AT. F, disting'd 
(Omission of word "as" after name of- 
plaintiff suing in<representative capacity) in 
Bennett v. Whitney, 94 jV. Y. 302. Compare 

; ' (Jurisdiction 'of surrogate) Code Civ. Pro.~ 

' §§ 2476, 2478, 2695. • • 

Beggs v. Butler, Clarice, 517. Rev'd in ! 9 
Paige, 226. Decision in 9 Paige; approved 
(Parties) in Vilas v. Jones, 1 If. Y. £74, 284. 

Behau v. People, 17 N. Y. 516. Examined 
and declared a binding authority (Vending 
strong liquors without license a mis- 
demeanor) in -Hill is. People,- 20 K Y. 363, 

, 366; s. c, 18 How. Pr. 289. Criticised 

at length in Foote v. People, 56 If. Y. 321.- 

Disting'd in People «. Hislop, 77 'If. Y. 331. 

. Followed (Exclusive nature of penalty 

• prescribed by statute) in Brown v. Buffalo 

■ & State Line R. R. Co., 22 If. Y. 191, 197; 
Compare Jetter v. N. Y." & Harlem R. R. - 

; Co., 2 Keyes, 154. Followed (Legislative 
• intent in remedial statutes) in First Nat. 

B'k of Whitehall v. Lamb, 57 Barb. 429. 
Beirne v. Dord, 5 If. Y. 95; s. c, 55 Am. 

■ Dec. 321, with note, containing citations. 
■See Dike v. Reitlinger; Frith v. Barker. 

Cited as an excellent case, and explained 
(Sales by sample) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 585, 
n. t. Revieved and collated, with other cases 
to same effect, in 22 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 
243. 
Beisiegel v. N. Y Central R. R. Co., 34 ¥. Y. 
622, rev'g 83 Barb. 429. Further decision 
in 40 N. Y. 9; also in 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 
29. See Dascomb v. Buffalo State Line R. 



BELDEN— BELKNAP. 



63 



R. Co. ; Grippen «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; 
Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 
Decision in 34 A 7 . Y. approved as to negli- 
gence being relative in dissenting opinion 
of Moneli-, J., in Gonzales v. N. Y. & 
Harlem R. R. Co., G liobt. 93, 297, with 
Ernst v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 
9. Disapproved in Dodge v. Burlington, &c. 
R. R. Co., 34 Jowa, 276, as partially over- 
ruled (Effect of neglect to give statutory 
signals at railway crossing) by later N. 
Y. cases. Decision in 40 N. Y. criticised 
in Gonzales v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 

. 39 How. Pr. 407, as showing a great 
diversity of sentiment in the court. Applied 

. in Dyer v. Erie R'y Co., 71 A 7 ". Y. 231, as to 

error in submitting question as to signals to 

jury. Applied in Richardson v. N. Y. Cen- 

' ■ tral R. R. Co., 45 K Y. 850. Explained in 

■ Weber v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co;, 58 N. 

■ r. 458.' McGrath v. N. Y. Central, &c. 
•' R. R. Co., 03 JST. Y. 522, 525. Followed 

in Callagban .v. Rome, W. & 0. R. R. Co., 

i 13 Weekly Dig. 395 ; Casey v. N. Y. Central, 

! &G. .'R.i R. Co., 6 Abb. N. G. 104, 125; s. 
a, 8 Daly, 220, which was aff'd in 78 K Y. 

i 628, '-which' see. Followed with Weber -v. 
N. Y.: Central R. R. Co., 08 -'M- Y. 459, in 
Welschs. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 
' 72 Mo. 451' ;'s. c, 37 Am.'Ii. 440. Decision 
in 14 Abb. Pr. followed (Violation of ordi- 
nance as evidence of negligence)- in Rvan v. 
Thomson, 38 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 133, 135. 
Applied in Devlin v. Gallagher, 6 Daly, 494. 
Approved in Knupfle v. Knickerbocker Ice 
Co., 84 A 7 ". Y. 488, 491. 

Belden v. Davies, 2 Mall, 433. See Dorr v. 
Munsell. See to same effect (Power of 
judge to direct verdict to settle question of 
rightj and then order a reference to deter- 
mine amount) Buchanan v. Cheesebrough, 
5 Duer, 238. So done in Bartels v. Red- 
field, 16 Fed. Pep. 336. But it is only in 
actions triable by the court with a jury, that 
an interlocutory judgment may be de- 
manded. 

v. Devoe, 12 Wend. 223, n. Explained 

and applied (Oath and jurat) in People ej; 
rel. Mosher v. Stowell, 9 Abb. A 7 . 0. 456 
461. 

v. Meeker, 2 Lam. 470. Aff'd in 47 

N. Y. 307. See Munroe v. Merchant. 
Decision in 2 Lam. cited as authority (Re- 
cord of proceedings before surrogate, as 
proof of death) in Carroll v. Carroll, 2 Hun, 
6*10. Decision in 47 AC Y. followed (Effect 
of letters of administration) in Farlev v. 
McConnell, 52 A 7 ". Y. 630. See to the con- 
trary (Assignment of corporate assests valid, 
without evidence of vote) Houghton v. Mc- 
Auliffe, 2 Abb. Ot. App. Dec. 409. See also 
Abb. Tr. Ev. 7. 

Belding v. Colliding-, 4 How. Pr. 196. Fol- 
lowed (Recovery of disbursements by one 
not entitled to costs) in Wheeler •». Westgate, 
4 How. Pr. 269, the contrary cases of Taylor 
v. Gardner, Id. 67, and Newton v. Sweet, 
Id. 134, being disapproved. 



v. Leichardt, 2 Sup'lrt. Gt. {T. & O.) 52. 

Aff'd in 56 K Y. 680. 

v. Pitkin, 2 Caines, 147; s. c, 2 A 7 ". Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 362, with brief note. See 
Woodworth v. Bennett. Limited and dis- 
ting'd (Contract relating to soldiers' claims) 
in Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70. 

Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 Barb. 69; s. c, 34 
How. Pr. 421. Rev'd in 51 K Y. 166; s. c, 
10 Am. R. 575. See Dorr v . N. J. Steam 
Nav. Co. Decision in 51 A 7 ". Y. applied 
(Effect of limitations in carrier's contract) 
in Magnin v: Dinsmore, 56 N. Y. 168, 173. 
Followed, in Steers v. Liverpool, N. Y., &c. 
S. S. Co., 57 A 7 ". Y.\. . Explained in Kirk- 
land v. Dinsmore, 2 Him, 49. Reluctantly 
followed in Soumct v. National Ex. Co.; 66 

. , Barb. 284. , Disting'd in Woodruff v. Sher- 
rard, 9 Hun, 322. Reviewed (Proof of 
negligence on the part of a carrier) in 
Magnin v. Dinsmore, 35 Super. Ot. (,/. & S.) 
182. Explained with Magnin v. Dinsmore, 

. 62 N. Y. 35 ; 70 Id: 410, the case of West- 
cott v. Fargo, 61 A 7 ". Y. 543, being cited as 
authority in Black v. Goodrich Transporta- 
tion Co., 55 Wis. 319; s. c, 42 Am. B. 638. 

Belknap, r. Belknap. See Hartwell v. Arm- 
strong. 

v. Bender, 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & O.) 611 ; 

mem. of s. c, 4 Hun, 414. Decision on 
appeal from judgment on second trial 
reported in 75 A 7 ! K. 446 ; s. c, 31 Am.. P. 
476, wherein the appeal is incorrectly stated 
to be from an order affirming a judgment!, it 
having been from a judgment and order 
reversing, &c. Decision in 6 Sup'.m. GL 
(T. & C.} disting'd (Par.ol agreement to 
pay another's debt, when rendered valid) in 
Tisdale v. Morgan, 7 Hun, 583, 585. Decis- 

. ion. in 75 N. Y. followed in Ackley v. Pan- 
menter, 31 Hun, 476. 

v.'Hasbrouck, 13 Abb. Pr. 418. Com- 
pare to the contrary (" Place of business") 
Bank of Commonwealth v. Mudgett, 44 
K Y. 514. 

v. North American Life Ins. Co., II 

Hun, 282. Followed (Remedies of creditors 
of a corporation) in Bewley v.. Equitable 
Life Ass. Soc., 61 How. Pr. 349; Cole o. 
Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 23 Hun, 255. 

v. Sealey, 2 Duer, 570. Aff'd in 14 A 7 ". Y. 

143. See Hosley v. Black. Decision in 14 
A 7 ! Y. disting'd (Amendment of variance) 
in Eield v. Syms, 2 liobt. 33. Explained 
(Recovery inconsistent with complaint) in 
Ross®. Mather, 51 K Y. 108, 111. Followed 
(Effect of words "more or less" in con- 
veyance or contract for sale of lands) in 
Paine e. Upton, 87 N. Y. 327, which aff'd 
21 Hun, 306, 811, which see. Disting'd in 
Callmeyer <o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 83 A 7 ". Y, 
116, 120. 

v. Trimble, 3 Paige, 577. Sec Gardner 

v. Trustees of Newburg. Approved (Power 
of chancery to regulate use of water-power) 
in Morris v. Hill, 1 Mich. 211. 

v. Waters, 11 N. Y. 477. Approved 

(What is a remedy) in Matter of Cooper, 



6i 



BELL— BELLINGER. 



22 2V. Y. 67, 87; s. c, 11 Abb. Pr. 301; 

19 How. Pr. 97. See (Definition of "spe- 
cial proceedings") Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
3334, n. 

Bell's Case, MS. Comm. of App. Disting'd 
(When county court may order tax refunded) 
in People ex rel. Hermance ». Supervisors 
of Ulster, 10 Hun, 545. 

Bell v. Birdsall, 19 How. Pr. 491 ; s. c, as 
Betts v. Birdsall, 11 Abb. Pr. 222. 

v. Chapman, 10 Johns. 183. See San- 
derson v. Morgan. Cited (Effect of war on 
right of action) in Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 
Mass. 661 ; s. c, 1 Am. R. 142, 144. Cited 
with Brad well v. Weeks, 13 Johns. 1, in 
Blackwell *. Willard, 65 2V. G. 555; s. c, 
6 Am. R. 749. Quoted in 1 Story on Oontr. 
5 ed. § 96, n. Cases collected in 10 Am. L. 
Egg. 2V. S. 230. 

y. Da*£, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 623. 

Rev'd in 60 K Y. 528. Decision in 60 2V. Y. 
disting'd (Implied warranty) in Ross v. 
Terrv, 03 K Y. 615 ; Littauer v. Goldman, 
72 2V. Y. 506, 511. 

T. Bay, 32 K Y. 165. See Condit v. 

Baldwin; Lee v. Chadsey. Followed (Usury 
— agency) in Van Buren v. Stokes, 3 Sup'm. 
Ct. {T. & G.) 511; Lee v. Chadsey, 3 Abb. 
Ct. App. Dec. 49 ; Elmer v. Oakley, 3 L/tns. 
37; Moore v. Bogart, 19 Hun, 230. Disting'd 
in Estevez v. Purdy,.6 Hun, 46, which rev'd 
50 How. Pr. 350; but was rev'd in 66 2V. 
Y. 449, which see. Approved in Palmer «. 
Call, U. S. Giro. Gt. Hist, of Iowa, 1881 ; 
12 Reporter, 194, citing cases. 

T. Bix. See Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 

T. Holford, 1 Duer, 58, 78. Explained 

(Additions to assignment for benefit of 
creditors) in Burrill on Assign. § 264, 4 ed. 

v. Leggett, 2 Sandf. 450. Rev ; d in 7 

2V. Y. 176. 

v. Locke, 8 Pai. 75; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 

371, with note, where it is said to be cited 
as authority (Property in good will) in 
Jerome v. Bigclow, 66 III. 455 ; Moore- 
head v. Hyde, 38 Iowa, 385 ; Perkins v. 
Currier, 3 Woodb. & M. 94, and frequently 
in N. Y. Approved, In Taylor v. Carpenter, 
11 Paige, 297. Cited with other cases, in 9 
Am. L. Beg. 2V. S. 71. Approved (Relief 
against fraudulent use of trade mark) in 
Goffeen v. Burton, 4 McLean, 516. Explained 
(Restraining use of name of publication) iu 
Potter v. McPherson, 21 Lun, 559, 564; 
American Grocer v. Grocer Pub. Co., 25 
Hun, 398, 401. 

t. Mayor, &c. of N. Y.. 10 Paige, 49. 

See Titus v. Neilson. Examined (Dower in 
mortgaged, lands) in Mills ». Van Voorhies, 

20 .V. Y. 412, 420, which rev'd 23 Barb. 
134, which see; Smith v. Gardner, 42 Barb. 
367 ; Wheeler «. Morris, 2 Bosw. 534 ; Bly- 
denburgh v. Northrup,13 How. Pr. 295. Fol- 
lowed (Charge to be borne by life-tenant) 
in Moseley «. Marshall, 22 N.' Y. 200, 206. 
Followed (Mode of computing amount that 
widow must pay to redeem from mortgage) 
inRayuore. Raynor, 21 Hun, 36. Explained 



(Allowance to mortgagee in possession for 
new improvements) in 4 Kent Com. 167, n. c. 

v. , 53 How. Pr. 334. Further pro- 
ceeding in 11 Hun, 511. 

v. Palmer, Cow. 128; s. c, 8 2V. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 856, with brief note. 
Followed (Liability of factor for loss from 
disobeying principal's instructions) in Kelly 
v. Smith, 1 Blatchf. C. Ct. 290, 294. 

v. Pierce. 48 Barb. 51 ; aflfd in 51 2V. Y. 

12. See Matter of Nichols. 

v. (Juin. See Hickok d. Trustees of 

Plattsburgh. 

— - — v. Richmond, 4 ^465. Pr. N. S. 44; s.;c, 
50 Barb. 571. Followed (Examination of 
parties before issue) in Morgan o. Whittakcr, 
14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 127, 129. Disapproved, 
in Had ley 1 v. Fowler, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 
244. Said, in 1 Gin. Pro. R. 84, n. to have 
been overruled, in 64 N. Y. 120. See to the 
contrary McVickar v. Ketch um, 1 Abb, Pr. 
N. 8. 452 ; Havermeyer v. Ingersoll, 12 Id. 
306; Fullerton v. Gaylord, 7 Robt. 551. 

v. Smith, 2 Johns. 98. Commented on 

(General average — adjustment) in 3 Kent 
Com. 244. 

v. Spotts, 50 How. Pr. 162. Afi'd in 

40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 552, but no opin- 
ion. 

V. Town of Esopus, 49 Barb. 50fi. 

Limited (Action, when maintainable against 
a town on a claim or debt) in Marsh «. 
Town of Little Valley, 1 Hun, 554, 556 ; 
s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & ■ G) 116. Limited 
in Brown v. Town of Canton, 4 Lans. 409, 
411. 

y. Yates, 33 Barb. 627. See Howland «£ 

Edmonds. Applied with Fisher v. Pond, 
1 Hill, 672; 2 Id. 338 (Sufficiency of plea of 
statute of limitations) in Budd v. Walker, 
29 Hun, 344. 

Bellinger v. Bentley, 1 Hun, 562; s. c, 4 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 71. Disting'd (Indi- 
vidual liability of one assuming to contract 
for association) in Whitford v. Laidler, 25 
Hun, 136, 140. 

y. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534. See- Gates v. 

Preston; Winfield v. Bacon. Disting'd 
(Effect of former adjudication) in Sdiwjnger 
v. Raymond, 83 2V. Y. 192, 197. Approved 
(Action for malpractice, when barred) in 
Gates v. Preston, 41 iV. Y. 113. Opposed 
in ResSequie v. Byers, 9 JHortha. Rep. 779, 
780. 

v. Ford, 14 Barb. 250. Further decision 

in 21 Id. 811. 

v. Gray, 51 iV. Y. 610. See Merritt v. 

Village of Portchester. Disting'd (Defects 
in tax proceedings) in First Nat'l B'k of 
Utica v. Waters, 7 Fed. Rep. 15S; 23 Alb. 
L. J. 471. Disting'd (Defects in tax-roll) 
in Bradley e. Ward, 58 JST. Y. 401, 409; 
Column v. Shattuck, 02 iV. Y. 348, 361, 363,- 
which aff'd 2 Hun, 497, 504; s. c, 5 
Sup'm. Gt. {T. & C.) 134, which see. Dis- 
ting'd with Peyser v. Mayor, &c. , 70 N. Y. 
500 (Recovery back of money paid on tax or 
assessment) in Sexton v. Pepper, 28 Hun, 31. 



BELLINGER— BELTOK 



65 



V. Marti ml ale, 8 How. Pr. 113. Fol- 
lowed (Granting of new trials in ejectment) 
in Harris v. Waite, 54 How. Pr. 114. 

v. N. T. Central R. It. Co., 23 If. Y. 

42. See Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn; 
Solden v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. 
Explained (Liability for trespass) in Losee 
v. Buchanan, 51 If. Y. 476, 4S0. Disting'd 
in St. Peter v. Denison, 53 If. Y. 410, 423. 
Followed (Liability as affected by evidence 
of care and skill) in Conhocton Stone Road 
Co. v. Buffalo, N. Y. &c. R. R. Co., 3 Hun, 
523 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 651. 
Referred to with Arnold «. Hudson River 
R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 108, 121, and other 
cases, in Eaton v. Boston, Concord & 
Montreal R. R., 51 If. H. 504; s. c, 12 
Am. P. 147, 152, as in conflict with the 
conclusions there reached as to what is a 
taking of private property within the 
constitutional meaning of the term. Lan- 
sing v. Smith, 8 Cow. 146, 151-108; Steele 
Western Inland Lock Nav. Co., 2 Johns. 
283; Gould v. Hudson River R R. Co., 6 
If. Y. 522 ; 12 Barb. 616; People v. Tib- 
betts, 19 If. Y. 523, 528; Coster v. Mayor 
of Albany, 43 Id. 399, 415 ; Matter of Water 
Comm'rs, 3 Edw. Oh. 290; Canal Commis- 
sioners, &c. ■». People, 17 Wend. 571 ; 13 
Id. 355; 5 Id. 423; People v. Canal Ap- 
praisers, 33 If. Y. 461 ; Polly v. Saratoga & 
Washington R. R. Co., 9 Barb.U9; Blood- 
good v. Mohawk & Hudson River R. R. 
Co., 18 Wend. 9, 17; Waffle v. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 58 Barb. 413 ; Benedict 
v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459 ; Waddell v. Mayor of 
N. Y., 8 Barb. 95, 99 ; Wilson v. Mayor of 
N. Y., 1 Den. ' 595, and many other cases 
being disting'd in this respect, and Rad- 
cliff's Ex'rs v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 If. Y. 
195, being criticised and questioned. See 
also numerous N. Y. cases cited in support 
of the opinion. Explained (Private 
nuisance) in Moalds UnderhUVs Torts, 1 
Am. ed. 453. 

Bellinger v. Shafer. See Green v. Winter. 

Bellows v. Elmendorf, 7 Lam. 462. Ex- 
pained (Violation of game law) in Phelps 
v. Racey, 5. Paly, 235, 237. 

v. Folsoin, 2 Pobt. 138. Disting'd 

(Failure Of consideration) in Bookstaver v. 
Jayne, 60 If. Y. 146, 151. 

v. Partridge, 19 Bafb. 176. Collated 

with other cases (Assignment for benefit of 
creditors — compounding debts), in Bishop 
on Assign. § 214. Collated (Selling on 
credit) with other cases, in Id. § 211. Dis- 
cussed (Terms of sale) in Burrill on Assign. 
§ 224, and n. 1, 4 cd. Collated (Conditional 
preferences) with other cases, in Bishop on 
Assign. § 2Q0. Explained (Preferences) in 
Burrill on Assign. § 178, n. 4, 4 ed. 

v Sackett, 15 Barb. 06. Quoted and 

explained (Dripping water) in Wood on 
Ifuis. 2 ed. §§ 118, 119. Explained in 
M-oak's UnderhUVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 401. 
Followed (Flow of surface water) in prefer- 
ence to Massachusetts cases, in Ogburn v. 
I.— 5 



Connor, 46 Gal. 346. Applied with Foot «. 
Bronson, 4 Lans. 47, in Field v. West 
Orange, 9 Stew. (If. J.) 118, to case of mu- 
nicipal authorities. 

Belmont v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 18S. Afl'd 
in 21 If. Y. 96. Decision in 21 If. Y. approved 
(Judgment against corporation as evidence 
of debt in action against stockholder) in 
Lewis v. Ryder, 13 Abb. Pr. 1, 5. Applied 
to case of trustees in Squires v. Brown, 23 
How. Pr. 35, 89. Criticised, as to trustees, 
in Miller v. White, 50 K Y. 143. Compared 
in McMahon v. Macy, 51 If. Y. 155, 103. 

T. Coiuan, 22 If. Y. 438. See Trotter v. 

Hughes. Disting'd (Effect of transfer of 
property subject to payment of a certain 
demand) in Dingeldein v. Third Ave. R. R. 
Co., 37 If. Y. 575, 578, which aff'd 9 Bosw. 
94, which see. Also disting'd in Douglass 
v. Cross, 56 Barb. 330. Applied to case of 
deed-poll in Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 
54 If. Y. 39. Reviewed in Lewis v. Day, 
53 Iowa, 575, 579. 

t. Cornen, 82 If. Y. 256. Disting'd 

(Service by publication) in Carleton v. 
Carleton, 85 If. Y. 313, 316. 

v. Erie R'y Co., 52 Barb. 637. Dis- 
ting'd (Cross -motion on application for 
mandamus) in People ex rel. Vandervoort 
v. Cooper, 24 Hun, 238. 

v. Lane, 22 How. Pr. 305. Opinion of 

Allen, J., said in Achelis®. Kalman, 00 How. 
Pr. 491, 496, to be the prevailing opinion, 
and that of Sutherland, J., dissenting. 

v. O'Brien, 12 If. Y. 394, 396. Dis- 
ting'd (Trust to receive rents and profits of 
land) in Heermans v. Robertson, 3 Hun, 464, 
469; s. c, more fullv, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 596, which was affd in 64 If. Y. 332, 
which see. Followed (Inalienability of trust 
estates) in Roosevelt V. Roosevelt, 6 Hun, 
31, 44. Applied (Validity of trust coupled 
with power of sale) in Brewer ■». Brewer, 
11 Hun, 152. Applied (Presumption as to 
payment of mortgage) in Pangburn v. 
Miles, 10 Abb. If. C. 42. 47. Reviewed 
(Presumption of payment) in dissenting 
opinion of Hunt, C, in Central B'k of Troy 
v. Heydorn, 48 If. Y. 272. 

v. Ponvert, 3 Pobt. 693. Affd in Id. 

698, n. Subsequent proceedings in 35 
Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 425. Decision in 35Suver. 
Ct. re-aff'd in subsequent decision in 38 Id. 
425, and rev'd in effect in 63 If. Y. 547. 
Decision in 63 If. Y. applied ("Proceeds" 
of estate, as including rents) in Kearney v. 
Missionary Socy. of St. Paul, 10 Abb. If. C. 
274, 278. 

Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 7 Bosw. 
543. Affd in 35 If. Y. 65. See Baker v. 
Bliss. Decision in 35 If. Y. reviewed, with 
other cases (Effect of statute respecting 
defense of usury by corporation) in Strong 
v. N. Y. Laundry M'f'g Co., 37 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 279, 283. 

Bel ton v. Baxter, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
182. Rev'd in 54 N. Y. 245; s. c, 14 
Abb. Pr. If. S. 404; 13 Am. P. 578. Further 



66 



BEMENT— BENEDICT. 



decision in 58 N. Y. 411 disting'g decision 
in 54 N. Y. as to evidence of negligence. 

Bemeiit v. Pittsburgh, &c. R. R. Co., 47 
Barb. 104. AfTd as Iloyle e. Plattsburgh, 
&c. R. R. Co., 51 Barb, 45, which was rev'd 
in 54 N. Y. 314; s. c, 13 Am. li. 595. 

y. Smith, 15 Wend. 493. See Coit ». 

Houston. Explained (Damages for buyer's 
refusal to accept) in Golden Gate Concen- 
trator Co. v. Jackson, 13 Abb. N. C. 476. 
Followed in Shawhan v. Van Nest, 25 Ohio 
St. 490; s. c, 18 Am. B. 313, 316. Dis- 
ting'd in Moline Scale Co. v. Beed, 52 Iowa, 
307 ; s. c, 35 Am. B. 272. Criticised and 
questioned in Moody v. Brown, 34 Me. 1 07 ; 
s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 640, with note; wherein 
Bement v. Smith is shown to accord with 
the main current of authorities. Cited as 
a leading case and explained in 2 Benj. 
on Sales, § 1125, n. 6 (Corbin's 4" Am. ed.) 
Quoted and explained (Acceptance of chat- 
tel made to order) in 1 Id. § 536. Re- 
viewed with Dustan v. McAndrews, 44 N. 
Y. 72, 78, and other cases (Remedy of 
vendor against purchaser in case of breach 
of contract to purchase) in Pittsburgh, Cin- 
cinnati & St. Louis. R'y Co. v. Heck, 50 
Lid. 303; s. c, 19 Am. B. 713, 715; Mc- 
Conihe v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 
405, being followed as a case in point. 

Bemus v. Beekman, 7 Cow. 29. Rev'd in 3 
Wend. 667. Decision in 7 Cow. cited as 
authority (Amendment of verdict) in Van 
Schoening v. Buchanan, 14 Abb. Pr. 468. 

Bench v. Sheldon, 14 Barb. 66. Explained 
(Fraud on vendor) in 1 Benj. on Sales, 
§ 668, n. 24 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

Bend v. Georgia Ins. Co., IKY. Leg. Obs. 
12 (Sup'm. Ct. N. Y. 1842). Cited in 
Greenl. on Bo. § 292, and 2 Taylor on Bv. 
1008, to show when parol evidence is in- 
admissible to vary the plain meaning of 
words. 

Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19 Wend. 207 ; s. c, 
32 Am. Dec. 448, with note. See Guernsey 
v. Carver. Explained (Cause of action, 
•when entire) in Hughes v. Alexander, 5 
Duer, 488 ; Law v. McDonald, 62 Row. Pr. 
340, 343. Applied in Shaffer v. Lee, 8 
Barb. 416. Followed and approved in 
Jex v. Jacob, 19 Bun, 105. Disting'd in 
O'Dougherty v. Remington Paper Co., 81 A". 
Y. 496; Perry v. Dickerson, 85 Id. 345, 348, 
352, which aff'd 7 Abb. N. 0. 460, which see. 
Criticised at length in Socor ». Sturgis, 2 
Abb. Pr. 75, which was aff'd in 16 N. Y. 
549, 557, where Bendernagle v. Cocks was 
examined at length with other cases. Re- 
viewed and criticised in Burritt v. Bolfy, 
47 Conn. 326. Relied on in Bourgesser 
v. Harrison, 12 Wise. 548. Disapproved 
in Mcintosh v. Lown, 49 Barb. 550. 

Bendetson v. French, 44 Barb. 31. Rev'd in 
46 N. Y. 266. Decision in 46 N. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Liability of landlord for loss of 
guest's property) in Rosenplaehter v. Roes- 
sle, 54 N. Y. 262, 266. 

Benedict y. Benedict, 15 Hun, 305. AfTd 



in 76 N. Y. 600. Subsequent decision in 
y Weekly Dig. 123; aff'd in 85 N. Y. 625. 

T. Caffe, 3 Duer, 669. To same effect 

(Costs against executors) Tindal ». Jones, 
11 Abb. Pr. 258, 259. Disting'd in Burn- 
ham v. Harrison, 3 Bedf. 345. 

v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396 ; s. c, 10 Am.. 

B. 382. See Coweo v. Cornell. Disting'd 
(Material alteration of note) in Redlich v. 
Doll, 54 N. Y. 234, 240; Palmer t>. Largent, 
5 Neb. 223; s. c, 25 Am. B. 479. Followed 
in Scofield v. Ford, 56 Iowa, 370. Collated 
with other cases, in 14 Am. Dec. 232, ~n. 
Followed (Memorandum on note, as part of 
it) in Grimison v. Russell, 14 Neb. 521 ; 
s. c, 45 Am. B.120. Applied in Cushingc. 
Field, 70 Me. 50; s. c, 35 Am. R. 293, 295. 
Disting'd in Overbaugh ■». Van Pelt, 10 
Weekly Dig. 9. 

v. De Groot, 45 How. Pr. 384. Fully 

reported in 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 125. 
- — v. Dixon, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 379. 
Appeal dismissed in 86 N. Y. 640. Subse- 
quent decision in 47 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
477. Decision in 47 Super. Ct. disting'd 
(Recovery of damages caused by injunction) 
in Fourth Nat. B'k of N. Y. v. Scott, 31 
Hun, 301. 

V. Field, 4 Duer, 154. AfTd in 16 N. Y. 

595. See Kelty v. Second Nat. B'k. Decision 
in 16 N. Y. followed (Note or bill taken 
for debt) in Kipp v. Munroe, 18 How. Pr. 
383; Bruce v. Burr, 5 Daly, 510. Quoted 
and collated with other cases, in 2 Hare & 
W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 304. 

v. Oilman, 4 Paige, 58. Approved 

(Action for strict foreclosure) in Ross v. 
Boardman, 22 Hun, 5.31. Applied (Rights 
of purchaser at foreclosure sale) in Smith 
v. Gardner, 42 Barb. 367. Applied in dis- 
senting opinion of Mullen, J., in Gage v. 
Brewster, 31 N. Y. 224. Applied (Remedy 
of judgment creditor after foreclosure) by 
Porter, Senator, in Posts. Arnot, 2 Den. 352. 
Approved in Wetmore v. Roberts, 10 How. 
Pr. 55. Followed in Brainard v. Cooper, 
10 N. Y. 362. Followed (Allowance for 
improvements) in Miokles v. Dillaye, 17 
N. Y. 86. Explained by Emott, J., dissent- 
ing, in Dows b. Congdon, 28 N. Y. 132. 
Applied (Deduction from interest in surplus 
moneys) in Raynor v. Solmes, 52 N. Y. 579, 
582. Disting'd (Right of one who has not 
been made party to foreclosure suit, to 
redeem) in Peabody v. Roberts, 47 Barb. 
100. Followed with Vroom v. Ditmas, 4 
Paige, 526, in Bradley «. Snyder, 14 111. 
263; s. c, 58 Am. Dec. 464; Benedict d. 
Gilman, being also followed (Allowance 
for improvements). Followed (Liability of 
party redeeming, for costs of foreclosure) in 
Vroom v. Ditmas, 4 Paige, 531. 

v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459. See Bellinger a. 

N. Y. Central R. R.- Co. ; Williams v, N. 
Y. Central R. R. Co. Distinguished and 
limited (Effect of converting highway into 
turnpike) in Craig v. Rochester City & 
Brighton R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 404. 



BENEDICT—BENNETT. 



67 



' T. Harlow, 5 How. Pr. 347. See Mc- 

, Dowell v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Approved 
(Attorney's right defeated by settlement) in 
Pulwr ». Harris, 62 Barb. 500, 505. 

v. Howard, 31 Barb. 509. Disting'd 

(Conversion as between tenants in common) 
in Osborn v. Schenck, 83 iV. Y. 201, 206. 

v. Huntington, 32 N. Y. 219, 227. See 

Brigham v. Tillinghast. Collated with other 
cases (Assignment lor benefit of creditors — 
directions as to time of sale) in Bishop 
on Assign. § 209. Discussed (Terms of 
sale) in Burrill on Assign. % 224, 4 ed. 

■ v. Lansing, 5 Den. 283. Explained 

(Private corporations — agents) in Ang. & 
A. on Corp. § 298, 11 ed. 

: v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Gh. 370; s. c, 7 Am. 

Dec. 484. See Clason «. Bailey; Ellis v. 
Hoskins ; Hatch v. Cobb ; Parkhurst v. 
Van Cortlandt. Overruled (Enforcing agree- 
ment not mutual) in McCrea v. Purmort, 16 
Wend. 460 ; Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484. 
Also dissented from in Matter of Hunter, 1 
Edw. Gh. 1 ; Woodward v. Aspinwall, 3 
Sandf. 2T2. Disapproved in Old Colony R.R. 
■v. Evans, 6 Gray, 25. Followed (Time, when 
of essence of contract) in Rogers v. Saunders, 
16 'Me. 92; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 635, 640, 
with note; Lewis v. Woods, 4 How. {Miss.) 
86 ; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 110, with note. 
Approved in Pom. on Sp. Per/. § 390, n. 
Said, in 7 Am. Dec. 492, n., not to be fol- 

. lowed generally now, on its doctrine as to 
the necessity of mutuality in a contract for 
the purpose of specific performance ; but see 
many citations of the case by courts of 
other States as to time being of the essence 
of a contract. 

v. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. 298. Approved 

(Statements of actions and defenses) in 
Lippeneott v. Goodwin, 8 How. Pr. 242 ; 
Gooding v. McAlister, 9 Id. 123. See in 
accord (Abolition of curtesy by laws of 
1848, 1849) Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. 508, 
522, which was rer'd in 2 Lans. 21, which 
see. 

v. Stuart, 23 Barb. 420 ; Ogden v. Des 

• Arts, 4 Duer, 283. Cited as authorities 
(Champerty) in Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51; 
s. c, 27 Am. li. 314, with note. See Sedg- 
wick <o. Stanton. 

v. Warriner, 14 How. Pr. 568. Disting'd 

(Sheriffs Ues) in Crofut v. Brandt, 58 JSf. Y. 
100, 112. 

v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. JSf. 

G. 221. Followed (Consolidation of com- 
panies) in Hatch v. Amer. Union Tel. Co., 9 
Abb. N. G. 223, 228. 

v. Wright, 19 Hun, 27. See (Sheriffs 

fees) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3307, n. 

Benedict & B. Mf'g Co. v. Thayer, 20 Hun, 
547. Further proceeding in 21 Id. 614; 
s. c, less fully, 59 How. Pr. 272. Motion 
to dismiss appeal denied in 82 N.Y. 61 0. 

Benham v. Cary, 11 Wend. 83; Jackson o. 
Roberts, 11 Id. 422. Followed (Duty of 
counsel to explain object of introducing 
evidence apparently irrelevant) in Crenshaw 



v. Davenport, 6 Ala. 390 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 
56, with note. 

Benjamin v. Arnold, 2 Hun, 447; s. c, 5 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. &C.) 54. See Campbell v. 
Tate. Overruled (Parol proof that maker 
of uote signed as surety) in Hubbard e. 
Gurney, 64 N. Y. 461. 

v. Benjamin, 5 N. Y. 383. Disting'd 

(Who may be removed in summary pro- 
ceedings) in Michenfelder v. Gunther, 60 
How. Pr. 464. Followed (Extent of remedy 
by certiorari to review summary proceed- 
ings) in Bokee v. Hammersley, 16 How. Pr. 
461. 

v. De Groot, 1 Den. 151. Examined and 

followed (Limitations of causes arising out- 
side of the State) in Olcott v. Tioga R. R. 
Co., 20 If. Y. 210, 224. Approved in 
Davis v. Garr, 6 N. Y. 124. Collated with 
other cases, in Throop Justice's Man. 2 ed. 
185. But see Code Git. Pro. \ 391. See 
also Id. § 401, n. 

v. Eluiira, &c. R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 

441. Disting'd (Party to foreclosure suit, 
when bound by judgment therein) in Payn 
o." Grant, 23 Hun, 136. 

v. Saratoga County Mutual Ins. Co., 

17 If. Y. 415; Kernochan r.. N. Y. Bowery. 
Fire Ins. Co., Id. 428. Disting'd (Transfei 
of interest in policy) in Shotwell v. Jefferson- 
Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 247, 262. 

v. Smith, 4 Wend. 332. Subsequent 

decision in 12 Wend. 404; s. c, 12 N. Y. 
Com. L. Law. ed. 174, with brief note of 
other cases, on verdict not affected by harm- 
less evidence. Decision in 4 Wend, followed 
(Return to execution — description therein of 
lands sold thereunder) in Webb v. Bumpass, 
Port. (Ala.) 201; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 310. 
See also note to 27 Am. Dec. 312, collecting 
cases. 

v. Taylor, 12 Barb. 328. Explained in 

Ross v. Harden, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 26, 
as not being an authority for joining a cause 
of action founded upon the contract of an 
intestate with one founded upon the contract 
of his personal representative. 

Bennet v. Hurd. See Teel v. Fonda. 

v. Jenkins. See Pitcher v. Livingston; 

Staats v. Ten Eyck. 

Bennett v. Abrams, 41 Barb. 619. Followed 
(Specific performance of oral agreement) in 
Green i>. Green, 2 Bed/. 408, 410. 

v. American Art Union, 5 Sandf. 614. 

See City of Utica v. Churchill ; Kennedy v. 
Strong. See also People v. African Art 
Union, 7 II. Y. 240. Commented upon 
(What constitutes lottery) in 1 Add. on. 
Contr. 1158, n., Abb. ed. 

v. Austin, 5 Han, 536. Motion to dis- 
miss appeal after new trial denied in 10 Hun, 
451. Plaintiff's recovery on new trial again 
modified by disallowing the $22,000 item, 
in 81 N. Y. 308, which superseded decision 
in 9 Weekly Dig. 308. 

v. Brooke. In case of this name, re- 
argument ordered in Ct. of App. Nov. 22, 
1881. See affirmance in 87 K Y. 619. 



68 



BENNETT. 



T. Brown, 4 K Y. 254; s. c, 1 Code R. 

K S. 2(57. See Van Kirk v. Wilds. 
Further decision holding defendant liable, 
in 20 ST. Y. 90; aff'g 31 Barb. 158. Decision 
in 4 jV! Y. collated with other cases (At- 
tachment — non-residence) in Throop Justice's 
Man. 2 ed. 20. Followed (Liability for 
costs covered by undertaking) in Hinckley 
■b. Kreitz, 36 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 413, 424, 
which was rev'd in 58 JST. Y. 583, 587, 
which see. 

v. Bnchan, 53 Barb. 578; s. c, 5 Abb. 

Pr. N. S. 412. ■ Modified in effect on further 
decision in 61 N. Y. 222. Further decis- 
ion in 76 K Y. 386. See Holden v. N. Y. 
& Erie B'k. 

■ v. Byrne, 2 Barb. Ch. 216. Applied 

(Wishes of deceased parent as to guardian- 
ship of child to be considered) in Burmester 
v. Orth, 5 Red/. 259, 202. 

- — T. Cook, 43 N. Y. 537. See Cole «. 
Jessup. Followed (Computation of time 
under statute of limitations) in case of non- 
resident) in Bell v. Lamprey, 57 TV. H 168. 
Collated, with other cases, in Throop Justice's 
Man. 2 ed. 185. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§401, n. 

v. Erving, 4 Robt. 671, See. (Place of 

trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 982, n. 

v. Garloch, 10 Hun, 328. Rev' d in 79 

■N. Y. 302; s. c, 35 Am. R. 517. 

v. Hull, 10 Johns. 364; Jackson v. 

Covert, 5 Wend. 141 ; Crookshank v. Burrill, 
18 Johns. 57; Sewall v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 215 ; 
Robertson v. Vaughan, 5 Sandf. 1 ; Brown 
v. Winan, 10 Barb. 406; Donovan v. Wilson, 
26 Id. 138; Parker v. Schenck, 28 Id. 30; 
Mead v. Case, 33 Id. 202 ; Downs v. Ross, 23 
Wend. 270. Collated in Pitkin v. Noyes, 
48 N. H. 294; s. c, 2 Am, R. 218, 222, as 
illustrating the rule said to prevail in N. Y., 
that a contract for the sale of goods not in 
existence, is a contract for work and labor, 
and not within the statute of frauds, this 
rule being said, however, to exclude from 
the operation of the statute a large class of 
cases that are within its mischiefs. 

v. Ingersoll, 24 Wend. 113. Limited 

(Issues on appeal fron justice's decision) in 
Wood v. Randall, 5 Bill, 204. 

i v. Judson, 21 N. Y. 238. See Mead v. 

Bunn. Limited (Liability for fraudulent 
representations) in Craig v. Ward, 3 Keyes, 
387; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 235. Followed 
in Kennedy v. Thorp, 3 Abb. Pr. IT. S. 136. 
Disting'd in Popes. Ilart, 35 Barb. 637; Bin- 
nard v. Spring, 42 Barb. 477; Oberlander v. 
Spiess, 45 Jf. Y. 178; Morehouse i>. Yeager, 
41 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 147. Doubted in 
Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27, 33, which 
affd AiBarb. 498, which see. Doubted as ex- 
treme, — in Weed «. Case, 55 Barb. 548. Ex- 
plained in Marsh v. Falker, 40 K Y. 562. 
Referred to in Indianapolis, Peru, &c. R'y 
Co. ». Tyng, 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 531; 
s. c, 2 Hun, 311 ; 48 How. Pr. 193, 201, as 
having been modified in its doctrine. Re- 
ferred to in Van Vliet v. McLean, 23 Hun, 



208, as having been explained and questioned 
by the Court of Appeals. Followed in 
Sharp v. Mayor, &c. of iv~. Y, 25 How. Pr. 
389, 392, as holding what is settled law. 
Followed in Brown v. Turtle, 66 Barb. 169, 
174; but see Meyer v. Amidon, 45 IT. Y. 
169, 174. Followed in Foot v. Mtna. Life 
Ins. Cp., 4 Daly, 294. Compared and dis- 
cussed in Livingston v. Keeeh, 34 Super. Ct. 
{J. & S.) 555. Relied on in Cabot v. 
Christie, 42 Vt. 121; s. c, 1 Am. R. 313. 
Referred to in Rolfes v. Russell, 5 Oreg. 
400, as overruled, or, at least, severely criti- 
cised in several later decisions in N. Y. 
Explained with Craig v. Word, 36 Barb. 
377, in Marshall «. Gray, 57 Barb. 414; 
Craig v. Ward being said to be based on 
Bennett v. Judson. Also explained and lim- 
ited in Chester v. Comstock, 6 Robt. 22, 
which was affd in 40 K Y. 575, n., which see. 
Cited in 2 Am. Dec. 79, a., as clearly deter- 
mining liability for fraudulent representa- 
' tions as to location of land. Disting'd (Lia- 
bility for wrongful act of agent) in Baldwin 
v. Burrows, 47 N. Y. 215; Hathaway v. John- 
son, 55 K Y. 93, 96. Disting'd in dissent- 
ing opinion of Gjlbert, J., in Chester v. 
Dickerson, 52 Barb. 366. Explained and re- 
conciled with Condit v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y. 
219,— in Smith v. Tracy, 36 JST. Y. 79. 
Appllied in Sherman v. Smith, 42 How. Pr. 
198; Stewart v. Strasburger, 51 How. Pr. 
400. Applied to contract made by officers 
of corporation, — in Alexander v. Brown, 9 
Hun, 647. Referred to as unquestionably 
sound, in Estevez v. Purdy, 6 Hun, 46, a case 
of usury. Applied in Krumm v. Beach, 25 
Hun, 293, 296. Relied on with Elwell v. 
Chamberlain, 4 Bosw. 320; 31 N. Y. 611; 
Crans v. Hunter, 28 N. Y. 389, in MundorfE 
v. Wickersham, 63 Penn. St. 87; s. c, 3 
Am. It. 531. Quoted and explained in 1 
Bish. on Mar. & D. % 173, n. 4, 6 ed. 
Quoted and commented upon in Bigel. Gases 
on Torts, 24. Applied (Supplying defect in 
pleading) in Morton v. Pinckney. 8 Bosw. 
138. 

v. Lake, 47 -iV. Y. 93. Relied on (Power 

to allow amendments of pleadings; upon 
motion) in Hochstetter r>. Isaacs, 44 How. 
Pr. 495. 

v. Leach, 25 Hun, 178. Discussed 

(Judgment against tenant in ejectment, 
whether binding upon landlord) in Sedgw. 
& W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 537.' 

v. Pratt, 4 Den. 275. Cited (Necessity 

that consideration appear in memorandum 
required by statute of frauds) as sustaining 
English doctrine, — in Benj. on Sales, § 232) 
n. n. (4 Am. ed.). 

v. McGiiire, 5 Lans. 183; s. c, more 

fully, 58 Barb. 625. See (Discontinuance 
of supplementary proceedings) Code Giv. 
Pro. 1881, § 2454, n. 

v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 

599. Aff'd in 69 K Y. 594; s. c, 25 Am. 
It. 250. See Townsend v. Same. 

v. North British, &c. Ins. Co., 8 Daly, 



BENNETT— BEEG. 



69 



471. AfTd in 81 if Y. 273. Decision in 81 
N. Y. followed (Waiver of condition in 
policy against use of oils) in Couch v. 
Rochester German Fire Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 
469, 471. 

v. Scntt, 18 Barb. 347. See Bank of 

Lansingburg v. Crary ; Pierrepout v. Barn- 
ard. Followed (Nature of license to cut 
timber) with Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y. 
279, in Jenkins «. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148; s. c, 
45 Am. R. 19. Compare Ilobbs v. Wether- 
wax, 38 Bow. Pr. 385. Explained in 3 
Pars, on Contr. 34, n. w. 

v. Tansyckel, 4 Duer, 462. Appeal dis- 
missed in 18 N. Y. 481. See Glackiu v. Zel- 
ler. Followed (One taking renewal of a lease 
when to be considered as holding it as trustee) 
I in Davis v. Hamlin, 108 111. 39; s. c, 48 
Am. R. 541. Decision in 18 if Y. followed 
(Waiver of right to appeal) in Knapp v. 
Brown, 45 if Y. 207 ; s. a, 11 All. Pi: if 
S. 118, 123. Disting'd in Barker v. White, 

' 58 if Y. 204, 210. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 1294, n. 

Bensel v. Gait, 2 Hun, 678 ; s. c, in full, 5 
Sufm. Ct. (T. & O.) 186. Collated with 
other cases (What cases are referable), in 1 
All. if 0. 109, n. 

T. Gray, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 447. 

Overruled in effect (Contract for sale of tax 
leases) in 62 if Y. 632. Further decision 
in 44 Super. Gt. (J. & &.) 372, which was 
aff'd in 80 N. Y. 517. 

Bensell v. Lynch, 2. Bolt. 448. Affd in 44 
if Y. 162. Decision in 44 if Y. cited in 
2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 828, as showing 
when, for evidential purpose, portions of a 
record may be admitted. 

Benseu v. Perry, 11 Hun, 16. AfFd, it seems, 
in 77 if. Y. 625, but no opinion. 

Benson, Exp., 6 Cow. 593 ; People o. Judges 
of Madison, 7 Id. 423. See Ex, parte Davis. 
Explained (As not authorities refusing 
judgment for costs on dismissing action for 
, want of jurisdiction) in King v. Poole, 36 
Barb. 242, 249. 

Benson v. Berry, 55 Earl. 620. Questioned 
(Levy on property in custody of another 
officer) in Jones Stat. & P. Co. v. Case, 26 
Hans. 299 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 310. 

v. Cromwell. See Hall v. Nelson. 

; v. Le Koy, 4 Johns. Ch. 651. Disting'd 

(Trust, when created by charge upon land 
devised) in Dill v. Wisner, 23 Hun, 127. 

■ v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 10 Barb. 223, 245. 

See Brittou v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y. Approved 
with Hegeman ». Western E. B. Co., 16 Id. 
353 (Police power of State) in Davidson o. 
State, 4 Tex. Ct. App. 545; s. c, 30 Am. R. 
166. Quoted in Gooley on Const. Limita. 

5 ed. 712, n. 1. Explained (Rights of N. Y. 
City in ferries) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. 
Staten Island Ferry Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. 

6 S.) 232. Reviewed (Effect of legislative 
enactment on municipal property) in Dar- 
lington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 if. Y. 
202. Commented upon (Legislative enact- 
ment—when to be declared uuconstitutional) 



in Cooley on Const. Limita. 5 ed. 199. Ex- 
plained (Contracts as affected by State laws) 
in 3 Pars, on Contr. 530, n. h. 

v. Snares, 28 How. Pr. 511; s. c, 19 

Abb. Pr. 61. Quoted and explained (Lia- 
bility for injury resulting from condition of 
dilapidated building) in Wood on Nuisances, 
2 ed. §§ 118, 119. Limited (Liability of 
lessor for injury resulting from condition of 
premises) in Clancy v. Byrne, 56 N. Y. 129, 
135. 

v. Tilton, 24 How. Pr. 494. Said in 

41 if. Y. 619, to have been aft'd in Court of 
Appeals, December, 1869. 
Bentley v. Columbia Ins. Co., 19 Barb. 595. 
Affd in 17 if Y. 421. 

v. Jones, 4 How. Pr. 335; s. c, 3 Code 

R. 37. Disapproved (Distinction between 
judgment and order) in Smith v. Lewis, 1 
Daly, 452. See, in accord therewith, as to 
decision on demurrer King v. Stafford, 5 
How. Pr. 30; Id. 127. But see Nellis v. 
Do Forrest, 6 Id. 413, 417. 

v.' Morse, 14 Johns. 468; s. c, 5 JST. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 944, wUh brief note. 
Disting'd (Moral obligation, as support for 
promise) in Gier v. Archer, 2 Barb. 420, 
425. 
Benton v. Martin, 31 if Y. 382. Further 
decision in 40 H. Y. 345. Both decisions 
explained and disting'd as to the effect of the 
duplicate draft, in further decision in 52 
if Y. 570, which rev'd 3 Alb. L. J. 212. 
See Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. ; People v. 
Bostwick. Decision in 52 if. Y. applied 
' (Parol evidence of conditions) jn McCulloch 
v. Hoffman, 10 Hun, 133. 136. Disting'd in 
Willset). Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242, 244; Bull's 
Head B'k v. Koehler, 1 City Ct. 272. Col- 
lated with Seymour v. Cowing, 4 Abb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 400, among other cases in Weste- 
man v. Krumweide, 15 A'orthw. Rep. 256. 

v. Pratt, 2 Wend. 385. Denied ( Damages 

for fraud) in Rice v. Manley, 2 Hun, 492 ; 
s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 14, as over- 
ruled by Dung v. Parker, 52 if Y. 494. 
Approved, however, in Rice v. Manley, 66 
2f. Y. 85, which rev'd 2 Hun, 492. Relied 
on in March v. Wilson, Busb. L. {N. C.) 
147. Explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 647 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. Wickwire, 54 if Y. 226. Disting'd 

(Mechanics' lien) in Fox v. Kidd, 77 if Y. 
489, 492. Explained (Personal judgment in 
proceedings to enforce mechanic's lien) in 
Burroughs v. Fosteran, 2 Abb. if G. 333, 
340. 
Bcrdan T. Sedgwick, 40 Barl. 359. Aff'd in 

44 if T. 626. 
Bcrdell v. Berdell, 58 How. Pr. 102; s. c, 
more fully, as Berdell v. Parkhurst, 19 
Hun, 358. Decision on reversal of order for 
examination before referee reported in 86 
K Y. 519. 
Berg v. Narragansett S. S- Co., 5 Daly, 395. 
Followed (Exoneration of carrier by delivery 
to connecting lines) in Weil v. Merchants' 
Despatch Transp. Co., 7 Daly, 456, 460. 



70 



BERGEN— BEERY. 



Bergen t. Bennett, 1 Cai. Cos. 1; s. c, 2 
Am. Dee. 281, with note, where it is shown 
to have been extensively cited and indorsed 
as an authority on the subject of powers, 
both in the Federal courts and elsewhere. 
See Conklin v. Egerton ; Davoue «. Fanning. 
Followed (Continuance of power of sale 
contained in mortgage) with Wilson v. 
Troup, 2 Cow. 236; s. c, 14 Am. Dee. 

, 458 ; Slee v. Manhattan Co., 1 Paige, 178, 
in Niles «. Eansford, 1 Mich. 838; s. c, 51 
Am. Dee. 95, 97, with note. Followed 
(Effect of execution by executor of power 
to sell real estate) in Braman v. Stiles, 2 
Pick (Mass.) 460 ; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 445. 

v. Bradley, 3G JT. Y. 316. Followed 

(Appeal to court of appeals, where new 
trial has been denied below) in Coleman v. 
Pleystead, 40 JT. Y. 341. 

— *— v. Carman, 79 N. Y. 146 ; s. c, as Ber- 
gen v. Snedeker, 8 Abb. JT. C. 50; rev'g 
Snedeker v. Snedeker, 18 Hun, 355. See 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bowen ; Snedeker 
». Snedeker. Decision in 79 JT. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Appealability of General Term or- 
der) in Matter of N. Y., "West Shore, &c. 
R'y Co., 94 JT. Y. 287. 

v. Gnlnia, 10 Eun, 11. Cited (Form of 

town resolution) in People ex rel. Murphy 
«. Kelly, 5 Abb. JT. O. 383, ». 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 5 Eun, 243. 

See (Power to appoint attendants for police 
, courts) Brinck «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 
Eun, 340. 

v. Snedeker. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. 

s. Bowen ; Snedeker s. Snedeker. 

v. Wyckoff, 84 JT. Y. 659. Reported in 

full in 1 Gin. Pro: R. {Browne) 1. 

v. Duff, 4 Johns. Oh. 368. Reorganized 

as authority (Delegation of naked power to 
sell in May v. Frazee, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 391 ; 
s. c, HAm. Dec. 159, 167, with note. 

Bergh's Case. Contempt, N. Y. general 
sessions, 1875. Present't, letter, briefs, in 
one volume at State Library in Albany. 
Reportedin 16 ^466. Pr.JT.S. 206. Collated 
(Constructive contempts) with Hall v. 
L'PIatinier, 49 Eoio. Pr. 500 ; Albany City 
Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige, 372 ; 
Bowery Savings Bank v. Richards, 3 Eun, 
366; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 59 ; Par- 
ker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388, 390 ; Sea 
Ins. Co. v. Stcbbins, Id. 565; People v. 
Church, 2 Wend. 262, in note to State v. 
Frew &Kart, 24 W. Va, 416; s. c, 19 Gent. 
L. J. 93. 

Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Jnillard, 13 Eun, 
506. Aff'd in 75 N. Y. 535; s. c, 31 Am. R. 
438. Decision in 75 JT. Y. cited (Liability 
of a partnership in case of credit given to 
individual members thereof) in Story on 
Partn. (7ed.) § 134, n. 

Berlin v. Hall, 48 Barb. 442. Doubted 
(Statute of limitations as defense, in pro- 
ceedings against joint debtor under Code 
Pro. § 375) in Gibson v. Van Derzeo, 14 
Abb. Pr. JT. 8. 111. 

Berley v. Rampacher, o Duer, 183. . Col- 



lated with other cases (Effect of married 
women's acts on liability of husband for 
wife's debts contracted while sole) in Cole 
ii. Seeley, 25 Vt. 220; s. c, 60 Am. Dec. 
258, n. 

Berly v. Taylor, 5 EM, 581. See Putnam 
v. Wise. Referred to in 17 Am. Dee. 244, 
n., as opposed (Waiver of wrong committed 
in removal of chattels) to the general current 
of the adjudications. Examined and approved 
(Delivery of goods to the use of another) in 
Sturtevant v. Orscr, 24 if. Y. 538, 542. 

Bernard v. Willcox, 2 Johns. Gas. 374. 
Disting'd (Proof of death of partner in 
action by surviving partner to recover a 
debt due the firm) in Ledden v. Colby, 14 
JT. E 33; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 173, with 
note. 

Berner v. Mittnaeht, 2 Sweeny, 582. Fol- 
lowed (Discrediting witness) in Burvee «. 
People, 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 60. 

Denies v. Weisser, 2 Bradf. 212. Cited 
(Judgment entered after death of debtor on 
verdict rendered before, entitled to priority) 
in Matter of Dunn, 5 Redf. 27, 31. 

Bernhard v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. 
Co., 18 Eow. Pr. 427. Rev'd in 32 Barb. 
165; s. c, 19 Eow. Pr. 199 ; and that aff'd 
in 23 Id. 166 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Gt. App, Dec. 131. 
Decision in 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. followed 
(Negligence in crossing railroad) in Thurber 
». Harlem, &c. R. R. Co., -60 JT. Y. 326, 331. 
Followed and approved in Ernst v. Hudson 
River R. R.' Co., 35 JT. Y. 40. Followed 
(Submission of question of negligence to 
jury) in Lamb v. Camden & Amboy R. R., 
&c. Co., 2 Daly, 467 ; Weber v. N. Y. Cen- 
tral, &c. R. R. Co., 58 JT. Y. 455; Burke v. 
Broadway & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co., 49 
Barb. 534. Applied in Wilde v. Hudson 
River R. R. Co., 23 Eow. Pr. 495. 

Berrien v. Steel, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 279, n. ; s. 
c, 62 Eow. Pr. 335. n. Followed (Hus- 
band's liability for torts of wife) in Fitz- 
simons v. Harrington, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 360, 
362. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 450, n. 

v. McLane. See Evans v. Ellis. 

v. Westervelt, 12 Wend. 194. To the 

contrary (Amending affidavit in replevin) 
Cutler v. Rathbone, 1 Dili, 204 ; Stacy «. 
Farnham, 2 Eow. Pr. 26 (which see below) : 
Spalding «. Spalding, 3 Id. 297. Disting'd 
in People ex rel. Beller v. Wright, 5 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & 0.) 518, 521. 

Berry, Matter of, 26 Barb. 55. Followed 
(Effect of security on appeal upon levy) in 
Rathbone v. Morris, 9 Abb. Pr. 213, 214. 

Berry v. Cross, 3 Sandf. Gh. 1. Consult 
(Voluntary associations) Ebbinghousen v. 
Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300. 

v. Kelly, 4 Robt. 106. Applied (Attach- 
ment against partnership goods) inDoane®. 
Lindsay, 42 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 399, 408. 

v. Mutual Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 603. 

See Brinckerhoff v. Lansing; Rockwell v. 
Hobby. Relied on, with other cases, in 
Probasco v. Johnson, 2 Dim. (Ohio) 98, to 
show that the weight of authority is against 



BERTHELON— BETTS. 



71 



the rule that an equitable mortgage is 
created by the deposit of title-deeds. 

t. People, 8 Weekly Dig. 15. Aff'd in 

77 If. Y. 588. 

v. Riley, 2 Barb. 307. Explained (As- 
signment for benefit of creditors— stipula- 
tions in assignor's favor) in Burr-ill on 
Assign. § 209, 4 ed. 

v. Robinson, 9 Johns. 121; s. c, 4 

N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 695, with brief 
note. Cited with Tohey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 
73 ; s. c, 4 Am. Dec. 326 (Necessity for de- 
mand and notice in case of note indorsed 
when overdue) in Poole v. Tolleson, 1 Mc- 
Cord (S. C.) 199; s. a, 10 Am. Dec. 663. 
Followed in Eckfert v. Des Coudres, 1 Mitt. 
(S. C.) 69; s. a, 12 Am. Dec. 609, with 
note; Hill ». Martin, 12 Mart. {La.) 177; 
s. c, 13 Am. Dee. 372; Colt v. Barnard, 18 
Pick (Mass.) 260; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 584. 
Followed with Agan ». McManus, 11 Johns. 
80 ; Leavitt v. Putnam, ZN.Y. 494, in Patter- 
son v. Todd, 18 Penn. St. 426; s. c, 57 
Am. Dec. 622. 

v. Yates, 24 Barb. 199. Applied (En- 
forcing contracts ultra vires) with Bissell v. 
Michigan Southern, &c. R. R. Co., 22 If. Y. 
258, 285, in Franklin Co. v. Lewiston Institu- 
tion for Savings, 68 Me. 43 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 9, 
12, 14. Disapproved by Slosson, J. (Effect 
of subscriptions) in N. Y. Exchange Co. v. 
De Wolf, 5 Bosw. 593, 609. 

Bertlielon v. Betts, 4 Sill, 577. Followed 
, (Priority of creditor procuring assignment) 
in Spear e. Wardell, l.tf. Y. 144, 149, 160, 
which rev'd 2 Barb. Oh. 291, which see. 

Berthoir v. O'Reilly, 8 Sun, 16. AfTd in 74 
N. Y. 509 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 323. See 
Aldrich b. Sager. Decision in 8 Sun, ap- 
plied (Violation of Sunday law as a bar 
to action for injuries) in Platz v. City of 
Cohoes, 24 Sun, 101. Decision in 74 
If. Y. disting'd in People v. Lyon, 27 Sun, 
180, as inapplicable to case of law pro- 
viding what shall be prima facie evidence 
of illegal sale of liquor. Followed with 
Mead v. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 493 (Right of ac- 
tion under Civil Damage Act) in Neu v. 
McKechnie, 95 If. Y. 632. 

Bertine v. Tartan, 1 Edw. 343. Rule herein 
said (Time within which to bring action 
after discovery of fraud), in Foot v. Har- 
rington, 41 N. Y. 164, to be modified by 
, Code. 

Besel v. N. Y. Central, &c. B. R. Co., 9 
Hun, 457. Kev'd in 70 If. Y. 171. Decision 
in 70 Af. Y. applied (Injury from negligence 
of co-employee) in Murphy v. Boston & Alb. 
R. R. Co., 8 Abb.. If. 0. 41. 48; s. c, 59 
Flow. Pr. 197, 203. Disting'd in McCosker 
v. Long Island R. R. Co., 21 Hun, 500, 507. 

Beslej v. Lawrence, 11 Paige, 581. Ex- 
plained (Effect of creditor having security 
for debt) in Jervis v. Smith, 7 Abb. Pr. If. 
S. 217. 

— - v. Palmer, 1 Sill, 482. Explained (Ex- 
tinguishing contract by judgment) in Suy- 
dam v. Barber, 18 JV*. Y. 468. 



Besson v. Southard, 10 K Y. 236. Followed 
(Question of probable cause for malicious 
prosecution, when for jury) in Heyne v. 
Blair. 62 If. Y. 19, 22. 
Best v. Bander. See Swords v. Owen. Dis- 
ting'd (Validity of sales, &c. without license 
required by statute) with Griffith v. Wells, 
3 Den. 226, in Mandelbaum v. Gregovich, 
17 Nev. 87; s. c, 45 Am. R. 433. 

■ v. Staples, 61 N. Y. 71. Mem. of 

decision here aff'd in 1 Alb. L..J. 102. 
Compare (Validity of mortgage taken under 
act of Congress as against State law) Aldrich 
v. Mtna Ins. Co., 8 Wall. 491. 
Bettis v. Goodwill, 32 Sow. Pr. 137. Dis- 
ting'd (Offer of judgment in foreclosure as 
affecting costs) in Bathgate v. Haskins, 63 
If. Y. 261, 267. 
Betts v. Bache, 23 Sow. Pr. 197; s. c, with 
affirmance, 14 Abb. Pr. 279. Mem. of 
affirmance in 9 Bosw. 614. 

v. Betts, 1 Johns. Ch. 197. Approved 

(Confession not admissible without other 
proof) in Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. 52. 

v. , 4 Abb. K C. 317. Part of 

opinion here omitted, in 57 Sow. Pr. 
355, n. See Valentine 1>. Valentine; Wes- 
terfield v. Westerfield. Followed (Divis- 
ion of void bequests between residuary 
legatees or next of kin) in Greer v. Bel- 
knap, 63 Sow. Pr. 390. See also (Vesting) 
Meyer's Will, Abb. N. C. 438, 445, n. Re- 
aft'd (Bequest to unincorporated society) in 
McKeon v. Kearney, 57 Sow. Pr. 396. 
Followed in Leonard v. Davenport, 58 Sow. 
Pr. 386. Compare 3 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 
269, 274. See also (Defective organization 
of corporation) Raisbeck ». Oesterricher, 4 
Abb. If. C. 44A, 445, n. See also (Volun- 
tary associations) Ebbinghausen v. Worth 
Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300. 

v. Birdsall. See Bell v. Birdsall. 

v. Garr. 1 Silt. 411. Rev'd in 26 If. 

Y. 383. Decision in 26 If. Y. followed 
(Granting leave to issue execution) in 
Iiincaid v. Richardson, 9 Abb. Jf. C. 315, 
321, as the true rule where facts are undis- 
puted and remedy doubtful. 

v. Hoyt, 19 Barb. 412. Compare (Lien 

of successive levies) Muscott v. Woolworth, 
14 Sow. Pr. 477; Wheeler 11. Smith, 11 
Barb. 345. 

v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 173; s. c, 10 

If. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 1058, with brief 
note on revocation. See Jackson v. Kniffen. 
Cited in Apperson v. Cottrell, 3 Port. (Ala.) 
51 ; s. c, 29 Am. Dec. 239, 242, as showing 
that the original jurisdiction of probates, 
belonged to the ecclesiastical courts. See 
also, Colton v. Ross, 2 Paige, 396; s. c, 22 
Am. Dec. 648, with note. 

v. June. See Evans v. Evans. 

v. Lee, 5 Johns. 348; s. c, 3 If. Y. Com. 

L. Law. ed. 1041, with brief note; s. c, 4 
Am. Dec. 368, with note, in which Curtis e. 
Groat, Johns. 168; Salisbury «. McCoon, 
ii, If. Y. 379; and other authorities are 
reviewed. See Merritt v, Johnson. Fol- 



72 



BEVAN— BIGELOW. 



lowed (Owner's right to reclaim property in 
an altered form) in Curtis v. Groat, 6 Johns. 
168; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 204. Compare, 
also, Isle Royale Mining Co. v. Hertin, 
37 Mich. 332; s. c, 26 Am. R, 520. 
Reviewed with Curtis ». Groat, 6 Johns. 
168; Chandler v. Edson, 9 Id. 362; Silsbury 
n. McCoon, 3 ZV. Y. 378, 385, in Wetherbee 
v. Green, 22 Mich. 311 ; s. c, 7 Am. R. 653, 
656. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 363, as admitting 
the Civil and English law on the wrongful 
acquisition of goods by accession. 

v. Williaiiislnirgu, 15 Barb. 255. Ap- 
proved (Injunction not allowed against 
illegal tax) in Dodd v. City of Hartford, 25 
Conn. 232. 

Bcvan v. Cooper, 7 Hun, 117; rev'd in 72 
A r . Y. 317. See Harris v. Fly ; Lupton v. 
Lupton ; Tucker v. Tucker. Decision in 72 
N. Y. reviewed (Jurisdiction of surrogate) 
in Matter of York, 6 Civ. Pro. R. {Browne) 
245. Disting'd in Steinele v. Oechsler, 5 
lied/. 312. Disting'd and limited in Leg- 
gett v. Leggett, 24 Hurt, 336. Questioned 
in Meeker v. Meeker, 4 Red/. 29, 34. 
Limited in Riggs v. Cragg, 89 ft. Y. 479. 
Explained (Legacy, when a charge on realty) 
in Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 JV. Y. 142, 148; Hall i>. 
Thompson, 23 Hun, 338. Recognized as 
authority in Manson ». Manson, 8 Abb. N. C. 
123. Explained in Giles' Estate, 11 -466. N. 
G. 57. 

Bevier v. Sclioonmaker, 29 How. Pr. 411. Ex- 
plained and limited (Liability of mortgagee 
for surplus) in Russell v. Duflon, 4 Lans. 
399, 404. 

Beyer v. People, 12 Weekly Big. 478; mem. 
s. c, 24 Hun, 655. Affd in 86 W. Y. 369. 

Bicknell v. Field, 8 Paige, 440. See Mead 
v. Merritt. Followed (Conclusiveness of 
foreign judgment) in Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 
J7. Y. 535.. See to the contrary (Effect of 
constructive service) Arndt v. Arndt, 15 
Ohio, 33. See also Abb. Tr. Et. 547. 

v. Lancaster City & County Fire Ins. 

Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 215. Affd in 
58 N. Y. 677. 

Bidwell v. Astor Milt. Life Ins. Co., 16 N. 
Y. 263. Disting'd (Jurisdiction of transitory 
action) in Gemp v. Pratt, 7 Daly, 197, 199; 
Landers v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 N. 
• Y. 459. Disting'd (Equitable relief) in 
N. Y. Ice Co. «. North w. Ins. Co., 31 Barb. 
77. Followed in Lattin v. McCarty, 41 
iV. 7. 111. 

v. Greenshield, 2 Abb. iV C 427. Ex- 
plained (Trespass — dispossession) in MoaJSs 
UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 381. 

v. Lament, 17 How. Pr. 357. Reviewed 

and disting'd (Dismissal of complaint) in 34 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 145. 

v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 19iV F. 

179. Subsequent decision in 24 Id. 302. 
Both decisions limited (Effect of warranty 
in insurance) so as not to oppose Jen- 
nings v. Chenango Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Den. 75 ; 
Kennedy v. St. Lawrence Mutual Ins. Co., 
10 Barb. 285, in Ripley v. Mtna, Ins. Co., 



80 K Y. 136, 162. Disting'd (Extrinsic 
evidence in action on policy) in Pitney 
v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 65 ZV. Y. 14, 
which affd 61 Barb. 341, which see. Ex- 
plained in Dakin <c. Liverpool, London, &c. 
Ins. Co., 77 K Y. 604. Decision in 24 W. Y. 
relied on in Tallman v. Atlantic Fire, &c. 
Ins. Co.. 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 345, 349. 
Followed in Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. b. 
Weill, 28 Graft. ( Ya.) 389 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 
364. Approved (Waiver by insurer) in Row- 
ley v. Empire Ins. Co., 4 ^466. Ct. App. Dec. 
135. Applied (Warranty not to be extended 
to known defects) in Bennett ». Buchan, 76 
N. Y. 391. Decision in 19 IV. Y. disting'd 
(Who may recover on policy) in Pacific 
Mail S. S. Co. v. Great Western Ins. Co., 65 
Barb. 334, 337. 

Bielschofsky v. People, 3 Hun. 40; s. c, 5 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 277. Aff'd, it seems, 
in 60 N. Y. 616, but no opinion. Decision 
in 3 Hun disting'd (Evidence of one crime 
to show intent to commit another) in People 
ex rel. Willis v. Justices of Special Sessions, 
10 Hun, 158. 

Bierbauer v. N. Y. Central, &c. K. E. Co., 
15 Hun, 559. Aff'd without opinion, in 77 
N. Y. 588. 

Bieseigal v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 33 
Barb. 429. Rev'd in 34 K Y. 622. See Bei- 
siegel v. Same. 
•Bigler v. Hall, 54 K Y. 167. Followed 
(Continuance of obligation to deliver per- 
sonal property) in Baltimore St. Pkt. Co. v. 
Garrison. 6 Daly, 246, 254. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 6 Hun, 239. 

Further decisions in 9 Hun, 253 ; 5 Abb. 
2f. C. 51. Decision in 6 Bun disting'd 
(Contracts of "municipal corporation) in 
Harrington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Hun, 
- 248, 253. 

v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 20 Barb. 635. 

Aff'd in 22 N. Y. 402. See Hand v. Wil- 
liamsburgh City Ins. Co. Decision in 22 N[ 
Y. said to maintain doctrine different from 
that generally prevailing (Validity of policy 
as affected b} r subsequent insurance) in 28 
Am. Dec. 125, n. Applied in Landers v. Wat- 
ertown F. Ins. Co., 19 Hun, 174, 177. Dis- 
ting'd and questioned in Hubbard v. Hartford 
Fire Ins. Co., 33 Iowa, 325; s. c, 11 Am. R. 
125, 130. Cited in Lindley v. Union Far- 
mer's Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 65 Me. 368; s. c, 
20 Am. R. 701, 704, as showing the N. Y. 
doctrine to be like that of the Federal courts, 
contrary to that maintained in Mass. Dis- 
approved in Fireman's Ins. Co. of Dayton 
v. Holt, 35 Ohio St. 189; s. c, 85 Am. R. 
601, 603. Commented on in Royal Ins. Co. 
v. McCrea, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 535. Reviewed 
with other cases, in 15 Alb. L. J. 324. 

Bigrelow v. Benedict, 9 Hun, 429. Aff'd in 
70 JV. Y. 202; s. c, 26 Am. R. 573. See 
Kingsbury v. Kirwan. Decision in 70 JV. Y. 
followed with Story v. Salomon, 71 JIT. Y. 
420 ; Harris v. Tumbridge, 83 Id. 99 ; s. c, 
38 Am. R. 398 (Contracts to deliver prop- 
erty, seller having option as to time), in 



BIGELOW-BIRD. 



73 



Wall «. Schneider, 69 Wis: 352; s. c, 48 
. Am. R. 520. 

v. Benton, 14 Barb. 123. Disting'd 

(Construction of guaranty) in Western N. 
Y Life Ins. Co. v. Clinton, 66 N. Y. 332. 

v. Hall, 25 Hun, 59. Abridg't in 12 

Weekly Big. 436. 

v. Provost. See Reed v. Pruyn. 

T. Stearns. See Bloom v. Burdick ; 

Yates a. Lansing. 

Biggnell v. Forrest. See Cathcart v. Cannon. 

Bigsby T. Warden, 62 K Y. 27. Disting'd 
(Notice of appeal from justice's court) in 
Jones ii. Cook, 1 1 Hun, 230. Followed in 
Poron v. McLoughlin, 14 Hun, 629. Col- 
lated, with other cases, in Throop Justice's 
Man. 2 ed. 91. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 3070, n. Followed (Costs of appeals from 
justices' courts) in Chapin o. Skeels, 20 
Hun, 448. 

Biltin v. Bihin, 17 Abb. Pr. 19. Cited with 
other cases (Limitation of time to bring 
action for divorce) in 8 Abb. N. C. 202, n. 

Bilborough v. Metropolis Ins. Co., 5 Buer, 
587. Applied (Promissory warranty in 
policy) in Schultz v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 
6 Fed. Rep. 675. 

Bildersee v. Aden, 12 Abb. Pr. K S. 324; 
s. c, 62 Barb. 175, rev'g 10 Abb. Pr. JST. S. 
163. See McDowell v. Second Ave. R. R. 
Co. Compare (Attachment — validity of 
undertaking) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 638, 
642, n. 

Bill v. Fourth Western Turnpike Co. See 
Bank of Utica v. Smalley. 

Billings v. Baker, 15 How. Pr. 525. Affd 
in 28 Barb. 343, where also the decision 
below is fully reported. See Hurd v. Cass. 
Opinion in 28 Barb, pronounced able and 
exhaustive, but the conclusion doubted 
(Tenancy by the curtesy) in Matter of 
Winne, 2 Bans. 21. Collated, with other 
cases, in Sharsw. & B. Cases on Real Prop. 
289. Criticised and disting'd in Porch v. 
Fries, 18 JSf. J. Eq. 204. 

v. Jane, U Barb. 620. Followed with 

Clement v. Adams, 12 How. Pr. 165 (Rights 
of transferee by delivery of promissory note) 
in Moore v. Miller, 6 Greg. 254; s. c, 25 
Am. R. 518. For stricter common law rule 
• (Proof of assignment) see Palmer v. Merrill, 
6 Cush. 282. See, also, Abb. Tr. Be. 2. 

v. Vanderbeck, 23 Barb. 546. Subsequent 

decision ki 15 How. Pr. 295. Decision in 
15 Hpw. Pr. disting'd (Reference on rever- 
sal of judgment) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y, 6 Baly, 386, 389. Decision in 23 
Barb. 546, disting'd (Accord unperformed 
• — when binding) in Panzerbeiter v. Way- 
dell, 21 Hun, 161, 162. 

Billington v. Wagoner, 33 N. Y. 31 (said to 
overrule Vilas ». Jones, 1 N. Y. 274). Fol- 
lowed with LaFarge v. Herter, 4 Barb. 346 ; 
9 iV. Y. 241 (Defense of usury, when not 
available) in Lemmon v. Whitman, 75 Ind. 
318; s. c, 39 Am. R. 150. Applied inMad- 
ison University v. White, 25 Hun, 490, 497. 

Bills T. N. T. Central K. K. Co., 53 N. Y. 



608. Decision on subsequent appeal in 84 
N. Y. 5. ,See Poucher v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co. 

Binck v. Wood, 43 Barb. 315. Said to 
have been aff'd in Court of App., 1869. 

Bingham t. Disbrow. 37 Barb. 24; s. c, 
more fully, in 14 Abb. Pr. 251. Rev'd in 
5 Trans. App. 198, no principle being, how- 
ever, settled by the decision, as a majority 
of the judges did not agree on the ground of 
the reversal. See (Supplementary proceed- 
ings — when maintainable) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, $ 2458, n. 

v. Weiderwax, 1 N. Y. 509. See Fel- 
lows v. Prentiss; Murray v. Smith; Shep- 
hard a. Little. Explained with Murray v. 
Smith, 1 Buer, 412; Fellows ». Prentiss, 3 
Ben. 512; McCrea ». Purmort, 16 Wend. 
460 (Who may be permitted to inquire into 
actual consideration of deed) in Halliday v. 
Hart, 30 JST. Y. 474, 493. 

Bininger v. Clark. 60 Barb.. 113. See Wil- 
lams v. Wilson. Cited (Good will of part- 
nership business as part of its property) 
in Story, on Partn. 7 ed. § 99, p. 159, n.; 
Williams v. Wilson, 4 Sand/. Ch. 379, being 
cited on a, similar point on p. 161. Ex- 
. plained in Morgan r. Schuyler, 79 N. Y. 
490 ^s. c, 35 Am. R. 543, 550, n. 

v. Wattles. See Wolfe v. Goulard. 

Binnard v. Spring, -42 Barb. 470. Reaff'd 
(Fraudulent sale — proof of scienter) in Clark 
v. Bamer, 2 Bans. 67. 

Binney v. Le Gal, 19 Barb. 592. Limited 
(Confession of judgment by one partner) in 
Lahey v. Kingon, 13 Abb. Pr. 192, 194. 

Binsse v. Wood, 37 iv". Y. 526. Disting'd 
(Discharge of surety) in Grant v. Smith, 46 
JSf. Y. 93, 99. Disting'd (Objection available 
on appeal from decision refusing non-suit) 
in Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Pratt, 
10 Hun, 445. 

Birch v. J.insen, 9 Weekly Big. 555. Affd, 
it seems, on this opinion, in 86 N. Y. 630. 

Bin-hell v. Strauss, 28 Barb. 293. Approved 
(Constructive fraud not ground of arrest) 
in People v. Kelly, 35 Barb. 444, 447, 455, 
460, 462. 

Birckhead v. Brown, 5 Hill, 634. AfFd in 
2 Ben. 375. See Union Bank ». Coster. 
Decision in 2 Ben. reviewed and explained 
with other cases (Guaranty, when general), 
in Evansville B'k v. Kaufmann, 93 N. Y. 
273, 287, which rev'd 24 Hun, 613, which 
see. Decision in 5 Hill collated with 
other cases, in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cos. 
5 ed. 352. Collated with Union Bank v. 
Coster, 3 N. Y. 214; McLaren v. Watson's 
Executors, 2 Wend. 425, and other cases, in 
28 Am. R. 347, n. 

Bird v. Caritat, 2 Johns. 342; s. c, 3 Am. 
Bee. 433, with note, where it is shown to 
have been frequently recognized as an 
authority respecting the right of a foreign 
assignee to sue, the cases cited in Story 
Con/. Laws, % 565, being thought by the 
editor to be on the whole decidedly against 
the right. 



74 



BIRD— BISRELL. 



V. Harden, 2 Abb. Pr. If. 8. 61; s. c, 

1 Robt. 383. See Harger v. McCullough. 
See other cases collated (Nature of liabil- 
ity of officer of corporation for its debts) 
in 6 Abb. If. 0. 259, n. 

v. The Josephine, 50 Barb. 501. Rev'd 

in 39 If. Y. 19. Decision in 39 K Y. ex- 
plained (Jurisdiction of State courts to en- 
force liens upon vessels) in Sheppard v. 
Steele, 43 K Y. 52 ; Brookman «. Hamill, 
Id. 554. Followed in Vose v. Cockroft, 44 
Id. 415. 

Birdsall v. Clark, 7 Bun, 351. Rev'd in 73 
If. Y. 73; s. c, 29 Am. R. 105, with note. 
Decision in 73 If. Y. disting'd (Delegation 
of power by common council) in Edwards ». 
City of Watertown, 24 Bun, 426, 428. 
Disting'd with Thompson v. Schermerhorn, 
6 if. Y. 92 (Validity of proceedings for street 
improvements) in Myers v. Martin, 17 Weekly 
Big. 110. 

v. Hewlett, 1 Paige, 32; s. c, 19 Am. 

Bee. 392, with note, wherein it is shown to 
have been relied on in other States as au- 
thority respecting the liability of<a devisee, 
accepting a devise charged with the payment 
of a legacy, this doctrine being however 
referred to in Mesick v. New, 7 If. Y. 167, 
as dictum. 

t. Patterson, 51 if. Y. 43. Applied 

(Adoption of verdict on special issues) in 
Madison University v. White, 25 Bun, 490, 
494. Followed in Carroll ■». Deimell, 13 
Weekly Big. 401. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 972, n. Intimation herein followed 
(Judge's power to direct verdict on trial of 
special issues) in Browne v. Murdock, 12 
Abb. IT. G. 360. 

v. Phillips, 17 Wend. 464. Overruled 

in effect (Questions arising on return to cer- 
tiorari) in Anderson v. Prindle, 23 Wend. 
616; Morewood ». Hollister, 6 If. Y. 309. 
See also to the contrary Benjamin v. Benja- 
min, 5 If. Y. 383. Approved (Against 
whom summary proceedings may be main- 
tained) in People ex rel. Higgins v. McAdam, 
84 if. Y. 293. 

v. Pixly, 3 Wend. 425. Overruled 

(Remedy by attachment for not producing 
papers) in subsequent decision in 4 Wend. 
196, which was followed (Contempt — strik- 
ing out pleading) in Walker v. Walker, 82 
if. Y. 260, 264. ' 

v. Russell, 1 Robt. 538. Rev'd in 29 If. 

Y. 220. See Loomis «. Jackson. 

Birdseye v. Ray, 4 Bill, 158. Aff'd in 5 
Ben. 619. Explained as not settling ques- 
tion (Transfer of property to secure antece- 
dent debt as sufficient consideration) in Wil- 
liams «. Shelly, 37 If. Y. 375. Followed 
(Continuation of possession under levy) in 
Hodge v. Adee, 2 Lans. 314. Decision in 4 
Bill, applied in Matter of Hull, 14 Blatchf. 
C. Ot. 257, 259. 

Bilk beck v. Ackroyd, 11 Bun, 365. Aff'd 
in 74 If. Y. 356 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 304. See 
Filer «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. 



v. Stafford, 23 Bow. Pr. 236 ; s. c, more 

fully, 14 Abb. Pr 285. See Power v. Kent. 

Birmingham v. Empire Fire Ins Co., 42 
Barb. 457, 459. Relied on (Avoiding fire 
policy for misrepresentations as to title) in 
Wineland «. Security Ins. Co., 53 Md. 277, 
286. 

Bisbey v. Shaw, 15 Barb. 578. Rev'd in 12 
If. Y. 67. Decision in 12 If. Y. examined 
and limited with Bush i>. Prosser, 11 if. Y. 
347 (Justification in actions of defama- 
tion) in Wachter v. Quenzer, 29 If. Y. 547. 
Followed (Pleading mitigating circum- 
stances) in Delevin a. Wilder, 34 Haw. Pr. 
488. Relied on in Van Benschoten v. Yaple, 
13 Bow. Pr. 97, 100. 

Bishop v. Alcott, 21 Bun, 253. Aff'd in 86 
If. Y. 503. 

v. Barton, 2 Bun, 436 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. 

Ct. (T. & G.) 6. Affd, it seems, in 64 If. Y. 
637, but no opinion. 

v. Bishop, A Bill, 138. Approved (Ef- 
fect of statute passed after will is made, but 
before testator's death) in Wakefield v. ' 
Phelps, 37 If. B. 295. 

v. , 11 If. Y. 123. See Goodrich v. 

Jones ; Voorhees ■». McGinnis. Disting'd 
(Fixtures) in Frank ■». Harrington, 36 Barb. 
415. Criticised and disting'd in Noyes v. 
Terry, 1 Lans. 219. Reviewed, with other 
cases, in Arnold v. Crowder, 81 Rl. 56 ; s. c, 
25 Am. R. 260. 

T. Breekles, Boffm. 534. See Smith v. 

Mulock. Quoted and discussed (Refusal of 
partner to proceed properly in business, as 
ground for dissolution) in 1 Pars, on Gontr. 
195, n. I. 

v. Edmiston, 13 Abb. Pr. 346. Rev'd 

in 16 Abb. Pr. 466. 

T. Ely, 9 Johns. 294; s. c, 4 If. Y. Com. 

L. Law. ed. 769, with brief note. 

v. Empire Transp. Co., 33 Super. Ct. 

(J. & S.) 99. Further decisions in 37 Id. 
12, 17; 48 Bow. Pr. 119. 

v. Garcia, 14 Abb. Pr. If. S. 69. Ex- 
plained and disting'd (Effect of judgment 
on party that has not been notified) in Dor- 
mitzer v. Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Co., 6 
Fed. Rep. 217. 

v. Halsey, 3 Abb. Pr. 400. Explained 

(Assignment for benefit of creditors — no 
disposition of surplus) in Burrill on Assign. 
§ 208, n. 2, 4 ed. 

Bissell v. Baleom, 40 Barb. 98. Rev'd in 39 if. 
Y. 275. Decision in 40 Barb, overruled also 
(Time of making payment required by stat- 
ute of frauds) in Webster v. Zielly, 52 Barb. 
482. Decision iu 39 if. Y. disting'd and lim- 
ited in Hunter v. Wetsell, 57 If. Y. 375, 379. 
Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 
192, n. 2 (Corbin's4 Am. ed.). Explained 
iu Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 343, n. 3, 
4 ed. Discussed (Sale of specific chattels 
unconditionally) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 320 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). Dictum followed 
(Making valid contract after void one) in 
Allis v. Read, 45 JV. Y. 142. 



BISSELL. 



75 



v. Bissell, 65 Barb. 325 ; s. c, I.Abb. Pr. 

N. 8. 16. See Feme v. Public Adm'r. 
Discussed (Formalities of entering into 
marriage contract) in 2 Add. on Oontr. 848, 
n., Abb. ed. ; 1 Bish. on Mar. & Biv. § 251, 
a. 6 ed. Cited with Willis v. Underbill, 6 
How. Pr. 396 ; Christy v. Clarke, 45 Barb. 
529, and other cases (Husband or wife as 
competent witness to prove their marriage) 
in 1 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 424. 

v. Cornell, 24 Wend. 354. Collated 

(Charge of crime involving moral tur- 
pitude) with other cases, in 1 Hare & W. 
Am. Lead. Cas: 5 ed. 99. Cited (Justifi- 
cation of libel as applied or explained by 
innuendoes), with Fidler v. Delavau, 20 
Wend. 57; Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 
56, in Atkinson v. Detroit Free Press Co., 
46 Mich. 348. 

y. Gold, 1 Wend. 210; s. c, 19 Am. Bee. 

480, with extended note collating authorities 
upon the subject of arrest. 

T. Hall. See Hubbell v. Cowdrey. 

v. Hnmblin, 6 Dner, 512. Further decis- 
ions in 3 Bom. 383 ; 13 Abb. Pr. 22. 
Decision in 6 Duer, cited (Effect of a pub- 
lic officer's entry as evidence) in 1 Whart. 
Com. on Ev. § 640. Decision in IZ Abb. Pr. 
disting'd (Reference on reversal of judg- 
ment) in Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 
Daly, 386. 389. 

v. Hopkins, 3 Cow. 166; s. c, 15 Am. 

Bee. 259, with note, where it is shown to 
have been frequently cited and approved in 
N. Y. (Retention of possession by vendor 
or mortgagor) its doctrine being thought, 
however, to have been modified by the 
Revised Statutes, citing White v. Cole, 24 
Wend. 136" See Barrow ». Paxton ; Beals 
v. Guernsey. To same effect, see Lewis v. 
Stevenson, 2 Hall, 63, 82. Approved in Hall 
v. Tuttle, 8 Wend. 375, 391. Followed with 
Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406, in Briggs v. 
Parkman, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 258; s. c, 37 Am. 
Bee. 89, with note. Cited in 1 Benj. on 
Sales, § 738, n. 58 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.), as a 
case in which a full discussion by the 
reporter will be found. Commented upon 
in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 666, n. 2. 

v. Kellogg, 60 Barb. 617. Aff'd in 65 

K Y. 432. Decision in 60 Barb, followed 
(Who may maintain proceeding to remove 
cloud on title) in Phillips v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 2 Hun, 212, 215. Followed, but 
point not indicated, in Mann?). Bouton, 21 
Hun, 410. Disting'd in Matter of Phillips, 
60 K Y. 21 ; Levy v. Merrill, 52 How. Pr. 
360, 3-65. Decision in 65 2F. Y. commented 
on (Application of statute against usury 
[L. 1837, c. 430, § 4] to purchaser) in 
Matthews v. Warner, 6 Fed. Pep. 465. 

v. Kip, 5 Johns. 100. See Mclntire v. 

Rowan. Approved (Taking advantage of 
irregularity in process) in Phillips v. Coffee. 
17 HI. 156; citing Jackson v. Walker, 4 
Wend. 4G4; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. 381. 
Disting'd, though approved, in Den v. 
Despreaux, 7 Haht. (A/. J.) 182 ; s. c, 22 



Am. Bee. 485, 488. Distfng'd in Coltraine 
v. McCaine, 3 Bev. (N. C.) Law, 308; s. c, 
24 Am. Bee. 256, with note. Followed in 
Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Seam. (III.) 364 ; s. c, 
39 Am. Bee. 418, 425, with note. 

v. Michigan Southern, &e. R. R. Co., 

22 N. Y. 258. See Berry v. Yates ; Stoney 
v. Am. Life Ins. Co. Disting'd (Contracts 
ultra tires) with Whitney Arms Co. v. 
Barlow, 63 Id. 62; Woodruff v. Erie R'y 
Co., 93 Id. 609, but Tracy v. Talmage, 14 
iv". Y. 179, followed in Nassau B'k v. Jones, 
95 N. Y. 115. Disting'd in Joslyn v. Dow, 
19 Hun, 497. Re-afFd in Parish 11. Wheel- 
er, 22 iY. Y. 509. Cited as authority in 
President, &c. of Union Bridge Co. v. 
Troy & Lansingburgh R. R. Co., 7 Lans. 
246. Cited in illustration in Kent v. 
Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 186. 
Approved with Farmers' & Mech. B'k v. 
Empire Stone Dressing Co., 5 Bosw. 275, 
in Monument Nat. B'k v. Globe Works, 101 
Mass. 57 ; s. c, 3 Am. R. 322. Cited with 
De Groff v. American Linen Thread Co., 
24 Barb. 375, in City of Memphis *. Adams, 
9 HeisTc. (Tenn.) 518; s. c, 24 Am. II. 331, 
339. Decision of Comstock, J., applied in 
Culver v. Reno Real Estate Co., 91 Pa. St. 
377. Quoted and commented upon in 
Morawetz on Priv. Corp. § 30, n. 1 ; Id. § 
111. Comstock, J.'s, definition of ultra 
vires discussed in 1 Pars, on Contr. 142. 
Followed (Liability of railroad company 
for injuries happening outside its line) in 
Buffett v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 40 iV. 
Y. 168, 178, which aff'd 36 Barb. 420, 425, 
428, which see. Also followed in Maghee 
v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 45 A Y. 
518. Included, with notes, in Field on 
Ultra Vires, 116. Quoted and collated, with 
other cases, in Id. 186, 387. Cited in Hutch, 
on Carriers, § 153, »., as discussing the 
question at great length and with great 
ability. Doctrine of Selden, J., referred 
to as approved, in N. Y. & New Haven R. 
R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 XT. Y. 49, and that 
of Comstock, J., said to be inferentially 
abandoned (Liability for employee's acts) in 
Lynch v. Metrop. Elev. Ry. Co., 24 Hun, 
506, 508. Disting'd with Edgerton v. N. 
Y., &c. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 227 (Duty of 
railroad company to one who by fraud ob- 
tains permission to ride) in Way v. Chicago, 
R. I. & P. R. Co.. Sup'm. Ct., Iowa, June 
1884, 19 N. W. Rep. 830. Approved (Lia- 
bility for fraudulent corporate acts) in Smith 
v. Rathbun, 66 Barb. 405. Disting'd, as to 
liability of shareholder in foreign corpora- 
tion, in Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 iv". Y. 
211. 

v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 26 Barb. 

630. Rev'd in 23 if. Y. 01. See Herring 
v. Fisher; Holdaue v. Trustees of Cold 
Spring. Decision in 26 Barb, collated with 
other cases (Highways — acceptance by pub- 
lic) in Mills' Thomps. on Ilighio. 3 ed. 64. 
Approved and applied in Kelsey v. Ring, 33 
How. Pr. 50. Decision in 23 N. Y. followed 



76 



BISSELL— BLACKSTOCK. 



(Right of owner of fee of land covered by- 
highway to maintain ejectment) with Car- 
penter v. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 24 
JV. Y. 655, in Terre Haute & Southeastern 
R. R. Co. v. Rodel, 87 Ind. 128; s. c, 46 
Am. J?. 164. Disting'd (Conveyance of 
land abutting on street) in Perrin v. N. Y. 
Central, &c. R. R. Co., 40 Barb. 69, which 
was, however, rev'd in 36 If. Y. 120, which 
see. Followed in Lozier v. N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co., 42 Barb. 467; Miner ». Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 200. Dis- 
ting'd in Lee v. Lee, 27 Hun, 1. Applied 
in Mott v. Mott, 8 Hun, 478. Collated, 
with other cases, in Mills' Thomps. on Highw. 

3 ed. 41. 

v. , 29 Barb. 602. After three argu- 
ments in court of appeals, rev : d in 25 JV. Y. 
442. See ■ Cole v. Goodwin ; Nolton v. 
Western R. R. Co. ; Welles v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co. Decision in 29 Barb. 196 over- 
ruled (Limitation of carrier's liability for 
negligence) in Perkins v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co., 24 JV. Y. 196. Decision in 
25 JV Y. followed in Lee v. Marsh, 43 
Barb. 107. » Applied in Belger ». Dins- 
more, 51 Barb. 69, 78. Applied in Myn- 
ard v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 
401, which was, however, rev'd in 7f 
JV. Y. 180, which see. Disting'd in Kirk- 
land v. Dinsmore, 2 Hun, 46, 51 ; Stin- 
son e. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 JV Y. 
337; Blair v. Erie R'y Co., 66 JV. F. 317. 
Disapproved in Cleveland, Painesville, &c. 
R. R. Co. v. Curran, 19 Ohio St. 1, 14; s. c, 
2 Am. R. 362. Denied in dissenting opinion 
of Sanderson, J., in Hooper v. Wells, 27 
Cal. 11. See also Pierce ». Milwaukee, &c. 
R. R. Co., 23 Wis. 387, 391. Criticised in 
Lawson's Gontr. of Carr. XLV. §§ 28, 128, 
220. Reviewed, with other N. Y. cases, in 
Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 
366. Denied in Ohio & Mississippi R'y Co. 
*. Selby. 47 Ind. 485 ; Pennsylvania R. R. 
Co. v. Henderson, 51 Penn. St. 328. Ex- 
plained in Ang. on Carr. § 528, n. b, 5 ed. 
Quoted and collated, with other cases, in 
Thomps. on Carriers of Pass. 401, 402. See 
Id. X"V. Remarks of Denio, J., as to com- 
parative value of human and bestial life crit- 
icised in Lehey v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 

4 Eobt. 209. 

— v. , 67 Barb. 385. Said in note 

thereto to have been aff' d at Oen. Term. 

v. Payne, 20 Johns. 3. Followed (Right 

of purchaser at judicial sale to rents accru- 
ing before execution of deed) in Cheney v. 
Woodruff, 45 JV. Y. 98. 

v. Pearce, 21 How. Pr. 130. Subsequent 

decision in 28 If. Y. 252. See Scott v. 
Delahunt. Decision in 28 If. Y. disting'd 
(Priority of subsequent special liens over 
chattel mortgage) in Scott v. Delahunt, 65 
If. Y. 132, which affd 5 Lans. 372, which 
see. Disting'd, and Scott v. Delahunt, 5 
Lans. 372, approved, in Case v. Allen, 
21 Kans. 217; s. c, 30 Am. R. 425, 427. 
Cited with other cases, in Storms «. Smith, 



137 Mass. 201. Cited in Whart. Com. on 
Ag. § 817, n., as to lien of farmer pasturing 
horses. 

v. Saxton, 66 JV Y. 55. Further decis- 
ion in 77 IT. Y. 191 Decision in 66 JV. Y. 
disting'd (Liability of sureties on official 
bond) in Scofield v. Churchill, 72 A". Y. 565, 
567. Applied (Surety not liable for the 
past) in Thomson v. MacGregor, 81 If. Y. 
597. 

v. Torrey, 65 Barb. 188. Affd in 60 

JV. Y. 635. 

Bissiek v. McKenzie, 4 Daly, 265. Followed 
(Former adjudication) in Bush v. Knox, 2 
Hun, 576, 579; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T.& C.) 
130. 

Bitter t. Rathman, 61 JV. Y. 512. Collated 
with other cases (Liability of married wo- 
man as partner) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 
12, n. 

Bitting 1 v. Yandenburgh. See Fields v. Moul; 
Morse v. Keyes. 

Black's Estate. See McDowl v. Charles. 

Black v. O'Brien, 23 Hun, 82. Applied 
(Costs in creditors' actions) in Potter v. 
Farrington, 24 Hun, 551. 

v. White, 37 Super. Ct. («/! & S.) 320. 

Further decision in 42 Id. 446. Decision 
in 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) followed (Waiver 
of trial by jury) in Keiley v. Dusenbury, 
42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 238. See Code 
Civ. Pro. § 1009, subd. 4. Compare 
De -Bussiere v. Holladay, 4 Abb. If. C. 
112, n. See (Demurrer) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 488, n. 

Blackley v. Sheldon, 7 Johns. 32. See Fox 
v. Smith; People v. McKay; Root v. Sher- 
wood. Disting'd (Mode of rendering ver- 
dict) in State v. John, 8 lred. L. (JV. 0.) 
330; s. c, 49 Am. Dee. 396, 401. 

Blackmar v. Van Inwager, 5 How. Pr, 367. 
Questioned (Validity of motion decided 
outside of territorial limits prescribed by 
law) in Newcomb v. Reed, 14 Id. 100. Ap- 
proved in Pinckney v. Hagerman, 4 Lans. 
374, 375. 

Black River & M. R. R. Co , Matter of, 9 
Hun, 104. Followed (Measure of damages 
for land taken for railroad purposes) in Mat- 
ter of Boston, Hoosac Tun., &c. R'y Co., 22 
Hun, 179. Both these cases disting'd, in 
Matter of N. Y., Lackawanna, &c. R'v Co., 
27 Hun, 116. 

Black River and UticaR. R. Co. v. Clarke, 
31 Barb. 258. Aft'd in 25 JV. Y. 208. See 
Jenkins v. Union Turnpike. Decision in 25 
JV. Y. disting'd (Payment on stock) in 
Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 367. Cri- 
ticised and questioned (Effect of subscrip- 
tion to take stock as evidence of corporate 
character of company) in De Witt v. Has- 
tings, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 463, 479. 
Collated (Calls for subscriptions) with other 
cases, in 1 Redf. Am. Railw. Cases, 197. 

Blacksmith v. Fellows, 7 A". Y. 401. Affd 
in 19 How. (U. S.) 366. 

Blackstock v. N. Y. & Erie U. R. Co., 1 
Bosw. 77. Affd in 20 JV. Y. 48. 



BLACKSTONE— BLAKE. 



77, 



Blaekstone v. Allemania Fire Ins. Co., 4 

Daly, 299. AfE'd in 56 JST. Y. 104. 

Blackwell v. Wiswall, 14 How. Pr. 257; s. 
c, 24 Barb. 355. Said in 24 Barb. 362, to 
have been affirmed at the General Term. 
Applied (Liability for wrongful acts of an- 
other) in Mecabe v. Jones, 10 Daly, 222. 
Quoted and collated, with other cases (Lia- 
bility of railroad company for contractors, 
&c.) in 1 Redf. Am. Railw. Canes, 373. 

Blade v. Noland, 12 Wend. 173 ; s. c, 27 
Am. Dee. 126, with note on the subject of 
actions on lost or destroyed notes. Applied 
to case of altered instrument, in Meyer v. 
Huneke, 55 Jf. 7. 412, 418. Disting'd in 
Steele v. Lord, 70 JST. 7. 280, 283. 

Blaiu v. Taylor, 19 Abb. Pr. 228. See Adams 
v. ~?an Alstyne. Followed (Covenant to 
maintain division fence runs with land) in 
Uaalett b. -Sinclair, 76 Ind. 488; s. c, 40 
Am. R. 254. 

Blair v. Bartlett, 75 K Y. 150. See Gates 
e. Preston; Schwinger v. Raymond. Dis- 
ting'd (Former adjudication) in Schwinger 
v. Raymond, 83 N. Y. 19.2, 197. Disapproved 
(Judgment for surgeon's compensation as bar 
to action for malpractice) in Ressequie v. 
Byers, 52 Wise. 651. 

y. Erie R'y Co., 66 iv~ 7:313. SeeNolton 

v. Western R. R. Co. Followed (Injuries to 
agent) in Price v. Penn. R. R. Co., Phila. 
Com. PL, Sept. 1880, 22 Alb. L. J. 391. 

v. Wait, 6 Hun, 477. Aff'd in 69 N. Y. 

113. See Continental Nat. Bank v. Nat. 
Bank of Commonwealth. Decision in 69 
Jf. Y. explained (Estoppel) in Vietor e. 
International Nav. Co., 45 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 129, 142. Compared with other cases, 
in 2 Pomeroy Eq. J. 266. 

Blaisilell v. Raymond, 14 How. Pr. 265; s. 
c, more fully 4 Abb. Pr. 446. 

T. Whiteford, 4 Hun, 264. Reported in 

6 Sup' in. Ct. (T. & C.) 462. 

Blake v. Bemhard, 3 Hun, 397. Reported 
in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 74. 

— v. City of Brooklyn, 26Barb.30l. Quoted 
(Injunction against taxes) in 1 High, onlnj. 
2 ed. § 544, n. 4. 

v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240. See Arthur 

«. Brooks. Disapproved (Effect of denial 
in form, "he says that he denies ") in Chap- 
man v. Chapman, 34 Id. 281. Opposed in 
Jones v. Ludlum, 74 W. Y. 61. 

r. Ferris. 5 N. Y. 48; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 

304 with note containing numerous citations. 
Bee City of Buffalo v. Holloway; Congreve 
«. Smith; Mayor, &.C. of N. Y. v. Bailey; 
Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Storrs v. City 
of (Jtiea. Collated (Liability for negligence 
of contractor) with Pack v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 8 K. Y. 222; Kelly v. Mayor, &c. of 
N.V., 11 Id. 432; Stores v. City of Ur.ica, 17 
Jd. 104; McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. 
R. K. Co., 61 N. Y. 178; s. c, 19 Am. R. 
207; Creed v. Hartman, 29 JST. Y. 591; 
Congreve v. Smith, 18 Id. 79; Lock wood v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hilt. 60, and other 
cases, in 27 Am, 11. G47, n. Collated 



with Stevens v. Armstrong, 6 N". Y. 
435; Congreve v. Smith, 18 Id. 79; Creed 
v. Hartman, 29 Id. 591 ; McCafferty r. 
Spuvten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 Id. 178, 
aud'other cases, in 27 Am. R. 702. Applied 
in Gourdier v. Cormack, 2 E. D. Smith, 254. 
Disting'd in Creed v. Hartman, 29 N. Y. 591. 
Explained in dissenting opinion of Dwigbt, 
C, in McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. 
R. Co., 61 N. Y. 200. Followed in Town of 
Pierrepont v. Loveless, .72 N. Y. 214. Ap- 
plied (Liability for excavation in street in 
Bliss «. Schaub, 48 Barb. 343. Reaff d as 
to liability of municipal corporations) in 
Pack v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 8 N. Y. 227 ; 
Kelly ». Same, 11 Id. 434. Criticised in 
Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 JST. Y. 106. 
Disting'd in Lockwood v. Mayor, &c. of N. 
Y., 2 Hilt. 67. Disting'd with Pack v. Mayor, " 
&c. of N. Y. , 8 K Y. 222 ; Kelly v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 11 Id. 432 ; Norton e. Wiswall, 
26 Barb. 618; Schular v. Hudson River 
R. R. Co., 38 Id. 653; Sweet v. Village 
of Gloversville, 12 Hun, 302; in Dressell v. 
City of Kingston, 32 Hun, 533. Disting'd 
with Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 K Y. 
222; Kelly <o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 11 Id. 
432, in Vogel v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 92 Id. 
10. Collated, with other cases, in. Mills' 
Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 91. Followed 
(Application of rule of respondeat superior) 
with Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 N. 
Y. 222; Kelly v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
11 Id. 432, in Eaton v. European & Northern 
R R. Co., 59 Me. 520; s. c, 8 Am. R. 430. 
Disting'd in Swords v. Edgar, 59 N. Y. 28, 
38 ; Cotter v. Bettner, 1 Bosw. 496 ; Mc- 
Cleary v. Kent, 3 Duer, 34; Congreve v. 
Morgan, 5 Id. 498 ; Althof v. Wolf, 2 
Hilt. 355. Followed in Gardner ■». Ben- 
nett, 38 Super. Cl. (J. & S.) 197, 199; 
Burmeister t>. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 
47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 264, 268. Applied 
in Sulzbacher ■». Dickie, 6 Daly, 469, 471 ; 
Boniface v. Relyea, 5 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 265; 
Blackwell ». Wiswall, 24 Barb. 359 ; Norton 
v. Same, 26 Id. 621 ; Schular v. Hudson 
River R. R. Co., 38 Id. 653; Gilbert v. 
Beach, 5 Bosw. 448 ; 4 Duer, 427 ; Simons 
v. Monier, 29 Barb. 424. Doctrine discussed 
and cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 
359. Collated with the conflicting cases on 
the doctrine of Bush v. Steinman, in note 
by John F. Kelley to Railroad Co. v. Gal- 
lagher, Ohio Supreme Ct. Com., 23 Am. L. 
Iteg. N. S. 503. Collated with McCafferty 
i>. Spuyten Duyvil, &c. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 
178, and other cases (Liability of em- 
ployer contracting for results depending 
on legislative grant for legality) in 18 Am. 
L. Rev. 635, 660. Cited in illustration 
(Stipulations in building contract, when not 
for benefit of stranger) in Cuff v. Newark & 
N. Y. R. R. Co., 35 N. J. 17; s. c, 10 Am. 
It. 205, 210. Criticised in 2 Thomps. on, 
Negl. 906, as contrary to sound principle, 
and as questioned in Storrs v. City of Utica, 
17 N. Y. 106. 



78 



BLAKE- BLAUVELT. 



v. Griswold. See Blake u. Wheeler. 

t. Jerome, 14 Johns. 406. Discussed 

(Trespass) in 1 Add. on Torts, 459, n., 
Wood's ed. Collated, with other cases, in 
Bigel. Cases on Torts, 380. 

v. People, 73 Jf. T. 586. See People v. 

Eastwood. Explained (Evidence of character 
of deceased, when admissible on trial for 
murder) in Nichols v. People, 23 Hun, 168. 
Explained (Admissibility of belief of wit- 
ness) in Tolman v. King, 24 Sun, 482. 

■ v. Sands, 3 Red/. 168. See to the con- 
trary (Power of suiTogate to remove testa- 
mentary trustee) Savage v. Gould, 60 Bow. 
Pr. 234. Superseded by Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 2817. 

T. Wheeler. See Bonnell v. Wheeler. 

Blakely t. Calder. 13 How. Pr. 476. Affd 
in 15 Jf. Y 617. See Fleet v. Dorland; 
Sullivan v. Sullivan. Decision in 1 5 J7! Y. 
disting'd (Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in 
partition) in Muller v. Struppman, 6 Abb. 
Jf. G. 343, 348. Approved and followed 
(Partition) in Howell v. Mills, 56 Jf. Y. 226, 
229. Disting'd and limited (Partition by 
remaindermen) in Sullivan v. Sullivan, 66 
Jf. T. 40. Followed in McGlone v. Good- 
win, 6 Daly, 185. Disting'd in Harris v. 
Larkins, 22 Hun, 488, 490, as inapplicable 
to case of cestui que trust. See Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, ch. XIV. tit. I. art. 2, n. 

Blakiston v. Dudley, 5 Duer, 373. Followed 
(Effect of parol promise to accept bill) in 
Flato v. Mulhall, 72 Mo. 526. 

Blaucliard v. Blanchard, 4 Hun, 287; s. c, 
6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 561. Affd, it 
seems, in 70 Jf. Y. 615, but without opinion. 
Explained (Powers substituted for trusts) in 
McGrath v. Van Stavoren, 8 Daly, 454, 460. 

v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342; s. c, 13 Jf. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 1113, with brief note. Also 
reported in 34 Am. Dec. 250, with note, 
.containing citations. See Griffin v. Colver; 
Staats ». Ten Eyck. Followed (Conse- 
quential damages) in Cassidy v. Le Fevre, 
45 Jf. Y. 562; Krom v. Levy, 48 If. Y. 679. 
Explained in Albert v. Bleecker Street, &c. 
R. R. Co., 2 Daly, 389, as not being an 
absolute authority on the subjects on which 
it treats, after the comments made on it in 
Griffin v. Colver, 16 K Y. 489. Explained 
in Griffin v. Colver, 16 Jf. Y. 489, which 
aft'd 22 Barb. 587, which see. Applied in 
Freeman v. Clute, 3 Barb. 427; Hargous v. 
Ablon, 5 Hill, 472 ; Academy of Music v. 
Hackett, 2 Hilt. 234. Applied to action of 
tort— in Walrath v. Redfield, 11 Barb. 371. 
Disting'd in Davis v. Talcott, 14 Barb. 623. 
Disting'd by Cowen. J., in Lattin v. Davis, 
HillS D. 15. Disting'd' in Green v. Mann, 
11 111. 615. Cited in The Rhode Island, 2 
Blatchf. C. Ct. 113, 114. Included in 
Sedw. Cases on Dama. 240. Relied on 
(Amount of recovery 1 in case of partial per- 
formance of agreement) in Porter v. Woods, 
3 Humph. {Tenn.) 56; s. c, 89 Am. Dec. 153, 
155, with note. 
T. Myers, 9 Johns. 66. Overruled (Ef- 



fect of certiorari as supersedeas to an execu- 
tion) in People v. Judges of the C. P. of N. 
Y., 1 Wend. 81. Latter case explained as 
not overruling the former, in Payfer v. Bis- 
sell, 3 Hill, 239. See, also, Jackson v. 
Schauber, 7 Cow. 417, 490. 

v. Nestle, 3 Den. 37. Followed 

(Undue influence on testator) in Burk's 
Will, 2 Red/. 239, 243. Explained in 
Willard on Executors, 91. Explained (Will 
written by legatee) in Id. 1 15. Commented 
upon (Lunatic making a will) in Ewell 
Lead. Cas. on Inf. &c. 655, n. 

— t. N. J. Steamboat Co., 67 Barb. 101. 
Aff'd in 59 Jf. Y. 292. 

T. Strait, 8 How. Pr. 83. See to the 

contrary (Remedy for indefinite and un- 
certain pleading) Wood v. Anthony, 9 How. 
Pr. 78. 

T. Trim, 38 If. Y. 225. Opinion of 

Gkoveb, J., in 7 Transc. App. 1. See 
Keating v. Price. Criticised (Statute of 
Frauds — note or memorandum in writing — 
parol evidence) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 215, n. 
17 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

— v. Western Union Tel. Co., 3 Sup'm. 
Ct. {T.&C.) 775. Rev'd in 60 Jf. Y. 510, 
the dissenting opinion in 67 Barb. 228, 
being adopted. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & C.) discussed (Nuisance — navig- 
able streams) in Wood on Jfuis. 2 ed. § 



483, n. 6. 
Blanco v. Foote, 

have been aft'd 

March, 1866. 
Blank v. Westcott. 



32 Barb. 534. 
by Court of 



Said to 
App. in 



7 Abb. Pr. Jf. S. 225. 
Disting'd (Costs) in Whitney v. Daggett, 6 
Abb. Jf. C. 434, 436. 

Blasdale v. Babcock, 1 Johns. 511. Ex- 
plained (Implied warranty on sale of goods) 
in 2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1062, n. 3. 

Blasdell v. Hevt'it, 3 Cai. 137. Criticised as 
imperfectly reported (Negativing proviso in 
statute in proceeding for penalty) and 
Bennett ». Hurd, 3 Johns. 438, followed, 
in Teel i>. Fonda, 4 Id. 304. 

Blason v. Bruno, 21 How. Pr. 112; s. c, 33 
Barb. 520. Approved, explained and dis- 
ting'd (Arrest for frauds in foreign country) 
in Brown v. Ashbough, 40How.Pr. 226,240. 
Disting'd and doubted, Browns. Ashbough, 
40 How. Pr. 226, being followed, and 
Mpller v. Azner, ll Abb. Pr. K S. 233, 
being disting'd in Claflin v. Frenkel, 29 
Hun, 288. 

Bla tell ford t. Ross, 51 Barb. 42; s. c, 5 Abb. 
Pr. If. S. 434 ; 37 How. Pr. 110. Compared 
(Receiver of corporation) in High on lieceiv. 
§ 288, n. 1. 

Blatchley v. Moser. See People r>. Stevens. 

Blattmacher v. Saal, 29 Barb. 22; s. c, 7 
Abb. Pr. 409 Doctrine discussed (Promise 
to marry by person already married) in 11 
Am. L. Reg. Jf. S. 71. 

Blant v. Gabler, 8 Daly, 48. Affd in 77 Jf. 
Y. 461. 

Blanvelt v. Woodworth, 31 Jf. Y. 285. Re- 
atfd (Mechanic's lien laws within power 



BLEECKER— BLOOD. 



of legislature) in Glacius «. Black, 67 JV. Y. 
563. 

Bleecker t. Ballon, 3 Wend. 263. See Mat- 
ter of Mayor of N. Y. Followed (Exemption 
from Assessments) in Roosevelt Hospital v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 84 JV Y. 108, 112. 
Followed and approved in First Presbyterian 
Church v. City of Fort Wayne, 36 Ind. 338; 
8. c, 10 Am. R. 35. 

v. Bellinger, 11 Wend. 179. Criticised 

and explained (Substituting answer for 
demurrer) in Peoples. Whitwell, 62 How. Pr. 
383. 

v. Carroll, 2 Abb. Pr. 82. See to the 

contrary (Examination before trial) Leeds v. 
Brown, 5 Abb. Pr. 418. 

y. Franklin, 2 E. D. Smith, 93. Cited 

Right of auctioneer to sue for fees, in his 
own name) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 647, n. 

v. Smith, 13 Wend. 530. Explained and 

applied (Forfeiture, when created by neg- 
lect of lessee to comply with covenant in 
lease) in Conger ». Duryee, 24 Hun, 617, 

, 619. Followed in Ireland v. Nichols, 2 
Sweeny, 289. 

v. , 37 How. Pr. 28. See to the 

contrary (Contents of motion to change 
venue) Cook v. Finch, 2 How. Pr. 89 ; Van 
Auken v. Stewart, Id. 181. 

Blceker v. Johnson, 51 How. Pr. 380. 
Rev'd as Bleecker v. Johnston, in 69 N. Y. 
309. Decision in 69 JV Y. relied on (No 
presumption against party created by his 
omission to produce a certain witness) in 
Arnold v. Morris, 7 Daly, 505. 

Blend v. People, 41 JV Y. 604. See Cancemi 
v. People. Disting'd (Court of Sessions) in 
People v. Dohring, 59 JV. Y. 374. 

Blewett v. Baker, 37 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 
23. Affd in 58 JV Y. 611. 

Blin v. Campbell, 14 Johns. 432. See Tenny 
v. Filer. Denied (Election of remedies by 
injured party) in Gates v. Miles, 3 Conn. 64, 
as founded on an erroneous proposition of 
Chitty, which he has since corrected. Ap- 
proved in Percival ». Hickey, 18 Johns. 283; 
McAllister v. Hammond, 6 Cow. 345. 

Bliss v. Ball, 9 -Johns. 132. Disapproved 
with Storm B.Woods, 11 Id. 110; Farring- 
ton v. Sinclair, 15 Id. 428 ; Kelly v. Griffin, 
17 Id. 274 (Senior execution creditor loses 
lien by inactivity) in Adair v. McDaniel, 1 
Bailey L. (S. ft) 158; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 
664, with note. 

v. Greeley, 45 JV Y. 671. See Ellis v. 

Duncan. Disting'd (Percolation) in Johns- 
town Cheese M'f'g Co. v. Veghte, 69 JV Y. 
16, 23. 

t. Lawrence, 48 How. Pr. 21. Fully 

reported in 58 JV. Y. 442. Decision in 58 JV. 
Y. disting'd (Assignment of unearned salary 
of public officer; in Thurston o. Fairman, 
9 Hun, 584. Cited and followed in 
Bangs v. Dunn, Sup'm. Ct. Gal., Oct. 1884, 
4 Pacif. Rep. 964. Approved in Beal v. 
McVicker, 8 Mo. App. 204. Explained in 
1 Pars, on Gontr. 226, n. 1 (Keller's ed.). 
Decision in 48 How. Pr. disting'd in People 



ex rel. Grattan v. Dayton, 50 How. Pr. 
143. 

v. Matteson. 52 Barb. 335. Affd in 45 

JV. Y. 22. See Carpenter v. Danforth. 

v. Otis, 1 Den. 656. Applied (Liability 

of attorney for costs) in Voorhees v. Mc- 
Cartney, 51 JV. Y. 389. 

v. Rice, 9 Johns. 160. Followed (Effect 

of appearance by infant without guardian) 
in McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. 

v. Schanb, 48 Barb. 339, 342. Followed 

(Decisions of county court, when only to be 
reviewed) in Dahash v. Flanders, 2 Sup'm. 
Gt. ( T. & ft) 445. Rule said, in Kilmer v. 
O'Brien, 13 Hun, 224, to be changed by 
Code Civ. Pro. Cited (Personal liability of 
agent for injury to third person) in Whart. 
Com. on Ag. § 537. 

y. Sheldon, 7 Barb. 152. Affd in 8 

JV. Y. 31. 

v. Sclnvarts, 64 Barb. 215; s. c, less 

fully, as Bliss v. Swartz, 7 Lans. 186. Rev'd 
in 65 JV. Y. 444. Decision in 65 JV. Y. 
disting'd (Consideration for release of debt) 
in Luddington v. Bell, 77 JV Y. 138, 142. 
Followed (Explanation of receipt in full) in 
Churchill v. Bradley, 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
170. 

Bliven v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 Barb. 
188. Affd in 36 JV. Y. 403. Decision in 
35 Barb, disting'd and questioned (Carrier, 
when not liable for goods seized on 
legal process) in Mierson v. Hope, 2 
Sweeny, 561. Decision in 30 JV. Y. followed 
with Van Winkle v. U. S. Mail Steamship 
Co., 37 Barb. 122. in Ohio & Mississippi 
R'y Co. !>. Yohe, 5' Ind. 181; s. c, 19 Am. 
It 727, 730. Followed and explained (Lia- 
bility of carrier for delivery) in Robinson 
v. Memphis, &e. R. R. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 
57, 63. As to rule in 36 JV. Y. as to 
bailee's estoppel preventing interpleader, — 
see Germ. Exch. Bk. v. pomm'rs of Excise, 
6 Abb. JV ft 394, 398. 

Block v. Columbian Ins. Co., 3 Robt. 296. 
Affd in 42 JV. Y. 393. 

Blodgett v. City of Syracuse, 36 Barb. 526. 
Applied (Municipal corporation — liability for 
riot) in Alleghany Co. v. Gibson, 90 Penn. 
St. 397; s. c, 35 Am. R. 670, 675. 

v. Couklin. See Grazebrook v. Mc- 

Creedie. 

Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 68 ; s. c, 24 
Am. Dec. 121, with note containg citations. 
Further decision in 12 Wend. 525 ; s. c, 12 
JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 217, with brief 
note. See Brown v. Bowcn ; Connelly v. 
Pierce ; Hanford v. McNaer ; Ex parte Ker- 
win. Decision in i) Wend, applied (Parol 
ratification of execution of sealed instru- 
ment) with Hanford *. McNair, 9 Wend. 54, 
in Despatch Linen. Bellamy M. Co., 12 JV H. 
205; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 203, 213. Followed 
(Proof of parol agreement to extend time to 
convey land) in Ladd v. King, 1 R. I. 224; 
s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 624, 627. 

v. Humphrey, 17 Barb. 660. Reviewed 

and relied on (Right of married woman to 



80 



J3LOODGOOD— BLOOMFIELD, &o. GAS LIGHT CO. 



Convey estate and acknowledge . execu- 
tion of deed) in Roberts v. Wilcoxson, 36 
Ark 367. 

Bloodgood t. Bloodgood, 59 How. Pr. 42. 
See Allen o. Allen. See to the same effect 
(Enforcing stipulation to pay half of referee's 
fees) Bricks. Fowler, 61 How. Pr. 153. 

T. Bruen, 4 Sarnlf. 427. Rev'd in 8 N. 

T. 362. See Soulden v. Van Rensselaer. 
Decision in 8 N. Y. followed with Wakeman 
v. Sherman, 5 Id. 85 (Acknowledgment of 
debt, that removes bar of statute of limita- 
tions, to whom to be made) in Sibert v. 
Wilder, 16 Kan. 176; s. c, 22 Am. R. 280. 
See to the contrary (Declarations, &c. of 
executor, &c.) Shrove v. Joyce, 36 N. J. (7 
Vroom) 44; s. c, 13 Am. R. 417. See, also, 
Abb. Tr. Ed. 59. Followed (Cause of action 
against estate of deceased partner) in Troy 
Iron & Nail Factory v. Winslow, 11 Blatahf. 
C. Ct. 513, 519. 

v. Clark, 4 Paige, 574. See Osborn v. 

Heyer. Reviewed and applied (Appoint- 
ment of receiver in creditor's suit) in Shain- 
wald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. Rep. 776. Quoted in 
High on Receiv. § 105, n. 4. 

■ v. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 14 

Wend. 51. Rev'd in 18 Wend. 9. See Beek- 
nian v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Go. ; Calking «. 
Baldwin ; Gardners. Trustees of Newburgh. 
Decision in 18 Wend, reported in 31 Am. 
Dee. 313, with note, where it is said to have 
been cited more frequently than almost any 
other case, either in N. Y. or elsewhere, 
as to the exercise of eminent domain, au- 
thorities being also collated. Explained and 
followed (Eminent domain — provision for 
compensation) in Drake v. Hudson River R. 
R. Co., 7 Barb. 552; Chapman v. Gates, 54 
N.T. 132, 144. Applied in People v. Mayor, 
&c. of Brooklyn, 9 Barb. 556 ; Wallace v. 
Karlenowefski, 19 Barb. 121 ; Gould v. 
Glass, Id. 190; Blodgett v. Utica & Black 
River R. R. Co., 64 Barb. 587 ; Rexford v. 
Knight, 11 K Y. 313; Dusenbury v. Mutual 
Telegraph Co., 11 Abb. K C. 440. Cited as 
authority in Russell v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
2 Den. 472. Relied on with Smith v. Hcl- 
mer, 7 Barb. 416; Gould v. Glass, 19 Id. 
190; Rexford ®. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308, in 
Cairo & Fulton R. R. Co. v. Turner, 31 Arh. 
494; s. c, 25 Am. R. 564, 570. Cited as 
authority in Beveridge v. West Chicago 
Park Commr's, 7 Bradw. (111.) 467. Cited 
from, with People v. Hayden, 6 Sill, 359- 
361 ; Chapman v. Gates, 54 K Y. 132, in 
Connecticut River R. R. Co. v. County 
Comm'rs, 127 Mass. 50; s. c, 34 Am. R. 
388. Collated with other cases, in 1 Red/. 
Am. Railw. Cases, 246. Applied (Character 
of railroads as public highways) in People 
v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 
543, 548. Applied (What are works or ob- 
jects of public benefit) in Clarke v. City of 
Rochester, 24 Barb. 481; Blooinfleld, <fcc. 
Natural Gas Co. v. Richardson, 63 Barb. 
447 ; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 147 ; Buffalo 
& N. Y. R. R. Co. v. Brainard, K Y. 108. 



Disting*d in Davis -o. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
14 K Y. 521. Reaff d in People v. Kerr, 
27 N. 7.191. Reaff 'd (Unconstitutionality 
of law appropriating private property to 
private use of another) in Embury v. Con- ' 
ner, 3 jV. Y. 517, which rev'd 2 Sandf. 106, 
which see. ReafTd (Trespass against cor- 
poration) in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Bailey, 
2 Den. 440 ; Dater v. Troy Tump. &c. Co., 
2 Hill, 631. Cited in Whiteman's Ex'x. v. 
Wilmington & S. R. R. Co., 2 Harr. (Del.) 
514; s. c, 33 Am. Dee. 411, 416, with note, 
as showing that an action of trespass will 
lie against a corporation. Explained (Lim- 
itation on grant to corporation) in Heath o. 
Barmore, 50 N. Y. 306. Explained (Evi- 
dence of public use) in Matter of Deansville 
Cemetery Assoc, 06 N. Y. 572. 

Bloom T. Bnrdick, 1 Hill, 130; s. c, 37 Am. 
Dee. 299, with note, containing citations. 
See Foot v. Sabin; Foot v. Stevens; Wheeler 
v. Raymond. Approved (Invalidity of pro- 
ceedings had without jurisdiction of person) 
in Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn. 273; Schneider 
v. McFarland, 2 K Y. 459,- which affd 4 
Barb. 139, which see. Followed in Bolton 
v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 166; Corwin v. Merritt, 3 
Barb. 345; Van Slyke v. Shelden, 9 Barb. 
.285; Wright ®. Douglass, 10 Barb. 110; 
Stanton v. Ellis, 16 Barb. 323; Ackley v. 
Dygert, 33 Batb. 191 ; Schuyler v. Marsh, 
37 Barb. 356 ; Havens v. Sherman, 42 Barb. 
640; Adams v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co., 10 K 
Y. 333; Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 K Y. 264. 
Applied in Sheldon v. Wright, 7 Barb. 42, 
which was aff'd in 5 N. Y. 497, which see; 
Van Rensselaer v. Witbeck, 7 Barb. 141 ; 
Lawrence v. Parsons, 27 How. Pr. 29. Ap- 
plied in Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Sav'gs 
Bk., 18 Blatchf. C. Ct. 1, 26. Applied with 
Jackson v. Robinson, 4 Wend. 436 ; Bigelow 
v. Stearns, 19 Johns. 42; s. c, 10 Am. Dee. 
189, with note: Denning v. Corwin, 11 
Wend. 647 ; Westcott v. Cady, 5 Johns. Ch. 
535 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dee. 306, in Palmer 
v. Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 433; s. c, 47 
Am. Dec. 41. Disting'd in People ex rel. 
Jennys v. Brennan, 3 Hun, 673. 

Bloomer v. Bloomer, 2 Brad/. 339. For a 
similar case (Effect of birth of child in 
causing revocation of will) see Hughes v. 
Hughes, 37 Ind. 183. 

v. Sherman, 2 Edw. 452. Affd in 5 

Paige, 575. Decision in 5 Paige approved 
(Application of statute respecting arbitra- 
tion) in Bulson v. Lohnes, 29 K Y. 291. 

v. Sturges, 58 N. Y. 168, 175. See 

Hoyt v. Martense. Statement as to joining 
assignor of mortgage as party defendant, 
criticised as dictum, — in Thomas on Mart. 
251. 

t. Waldron, 3 Hill, 361. See Osgood «. 

Franklin. See also (Functus officio) Bigler i). 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 5 Abb. N. C. 51, and Id. 
52, n. Quoted (Deed creating power as to one 
parcel of land, and an estate as to another) 
in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 651. 

Blooinfleld', &c. Gas Light Co. v. Calkins. 



BLOOMFIELD, &c. GASLIGHT CO.— BOAED OF EXCISE. 81 



1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 549. Aff'd in 62 
N. Y. 886. See Story •». N. Y. Elevated R. 
R. Co. Decision in 62 K Y. disting'd 
(Right to lay pipes in streets, &c.) in Crooke 
v. Flatbush Water- works Co., 27 Hun, 72; 
Same v. Same, 29 Id. 245. Compare Bloom- 
field, &c. Gaslight Co. v. Richardson, 63 
Barb. 437. 

& Both. Natural Gaslight Co. v. Rich- 
ardson, 63 Barb. 437. Compare Same e. 
Calkins. Discussed (Eminent domain — 
public use) in 2 Add. on Torts, 247, n., 
Wood's ed. 

Blossom v. Barrett, 37 K Y. 434, 436. 
Disting'd (Joinder of causes of action) in 
Morenus v. Crawford, 15 Hun, 45, 47. 

v. Champion, 28 Barb. 217. Subse- 
quent decision in 37 Id. 554. 

v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264. Disting'd 

(Restriction of liability of carrier by con- 
tract) in Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, 
171; Elmore «. Sands, 54 N. Y. 512, 515; 
Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 179. 
Followed in Madan v. Sherard, 73 N. Y. 
329, 331. Criticised in Ayres -v.. Western 
R. R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 0. Ct. 9, 14. In- 
cluded, with notes, in 2 Bed/. Am. Bailw. 
Copses, 86. Quoted and commented upon in 

2 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 952, n. 2. 

v. Estes, 22 Hun, 472 ; s. c, 59 How. Pr. 

381. Aff d in 84 N. Y. 614. Decision in 
84 N. Y. disting'd (Appearance that will up- 
hold attachment) in Pomeroy «. Moss, 15 
Weekly Dig. 25 ; Catlin v. Ricketts, 91 K 
Y. 668. Decision in 22 Hun approved and 
applied (What will sustain an order of 
arrest) in Southern Inland Nav. & Imp. 
Co. ». Sherwin, 1 Civ. Fro. B. 44, 46. 

v. Griffin, 13 JV. Y. 569. See McDonald v. 

Western R. R. Co. Followed (Commence- 
ment of carriers' responsibility for goods) 
in Wade v. Wheeler, 3 Bans. 204 ; Rogers 
v Wheeler, 6 Id. 429. Cited as authority 
in McDonald v. Western R. R. Co., 34 N. 
Y. 503. Cited with Ladue v. Griffith, 25 
JV". Y. 364, in Conkey v. Milwaukee & St. 
Paul R'way Co., 31 Wis. 619; s. c, 11 
Am. B. 630. Cited, with- other cases, in. 
12 Am. L. Beg. N. 8. 378. Quoted and 
commented upon in 2 Bed/. Am. Bailw. 
Cases, 147. Applied (Evideuce of surround- 
ing circumstances, &c.) in Coughtry v. 
Levine, 4 Daly, 336 ; Springsteen v. Sam- 
son, 32 N. Y. 706; Matter of N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 419; Grierson v. Mason, 
60 N~. Y. 397, which aff d 3 Sup'm. Ct. {T. 
& C.) 185, which see. 

v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 

162. tDisting'd (Waiver of proof of loss) in 
Goodwin v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. 
Co., 73 K Y. 480, 492. Followed in Bell v. 
Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 19 Hun, 238. 

Blotv. Boiceau. 1 Sand/. 111. Rev'd in 3 
N. Y. 78; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 345, with note. 
Quoted (Damages in action against agent 
for disobedience) in 3 Pars, on Contr. 190, 
n. m. Included in Sedgw. Cases on Dama. 
402. Cited with Suydam v. Allen, 20 

L— 6 



Wend. 324, in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 
252. 

Blowers v. Stnrtevant, 4 Den. 46. Applied 
(Wife, when not justified in refusing to re- 
turn to her husband) in People v. Pettit, 74 
N. Y. 320, 325. Language of Bbonson, Ch. 
J., relating to case of Harwood v. Heffer, 8 
Taunt. 421, approvingly cited (Liability for 
goods furnished wife living apart from hus- 
band) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 153, n. o. 

Blunt r. Aiken. 15 Wend. 522. Followed 
(Liability for nuisance after parting with 
possession of land) in Hanse v. Cowing, 1 
Bans. 288, as not overruled by Waggoner v. 
Jermaine, 3 Den. 312, but, as modified by 
that case, to be deemed still the law, and 
virtually aff'd, in Mayor of Albany 1>. Cun- 
liff, 1 N. Y. 174. See criticisms in last 
two cases cited. 

v. Boyd, 3 Barb. 209, 212. Discussed 

(Statute of Frauds — guaranties) in Browne 
on Stat, o/ Frauds, § 167, 4 ed. 

v. Greenwood, 1 Cow. 15. See to the 

contrary (Power of court to interfere by 
mandamus to control practice of other courts) 
People ex rel. Griffin ». Common Pleas oi 
Jefferson, 2 How. Pr. 59. 

Blyrteirburgh v. Bingham, 38 N. Y. 371. 
Followed (Discharge of surety of judgment 
debtor) in Ducker o. Rapp, 41 Super. Ct. 
(/. & S.) 235, 243. Disting'd (Burden of 
proof on creditor who releases or delays in 
enforcing securities) in Coining v. Pond, 29 
Hun, 129. 

v. Cotheal, 4 K Y. 418. See Adams v. 

Dyer. Applied (Fractions of a day) in 
Jones v. Porter, 6 How. Pr. 286. 

t. Northrup, 13 How. Pr. 289. Collated 

(Surplus moneys on foreclosure of mort- 
gage — inchoate dower right) with other 
cases, in Colby on Foree. 54. 

Blyer v. Monholland. See Burr v. Beers; 
Lawrence v. Fox. 

Blylhe v. Tompkins, 2 Abb. Pr. 468. See 
Lincoln v. Saratoga, &c. R. R. Co. Approved 
(Stating facts in affidavit for arrest) in U. S. 
v. Tureaud, Cir. Ct. E. D. La., May, 1884, 
20 Fed. Bep. 623. 

Board, Ex parte. 4 . Cow. 420. Compare 
(Proof to be furnished on redemption of real 
property) Code Civ. Pro. § 1464. 

Board of Education y. Fonda, 77 K Y. 350. 
Followed (Liability of surety on official 
bond) in Van Campen n. Ross, 9 Abb. N. C. 
385, 389, 390, note. Said to clearly state 
the rule, and collated with other cases to the 
same effect, in 29 Alb. L. J. 406. 

Board of Education of New Lots v. Hickcox, 
24 Hun, 237. Reported as Same v. Heckox, 
12 Weekly Dig. 206. 

Board of Excise v. Sackrider, 35 K Y. 154. 
Reviewed and applied (Powers of members 
of board of excise) in Metcalf v. Garling- 
house, 40 How. Pr. 50. Followed in People 
». Supervisors of Delaware Co., 45 -ZV^ Y. 196. 
See (Adjournment by justice to allow time 
for return of attachment) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 2967, n. 



82 



BOARD, &c. OF ORANGE— BOGARDUS. 



Board of Excise of Orange t. Dongherty, 

65 Burb. 332. Cited as authority (License 
not assignable) in State v. Lydick, 11 Neb. 
366. 

Board of Excise of Saratoga t. Doherty, 16 
How.Pr. 46. See however (Pleading over 
in justices' courts after demurrer sustained) 
Code Civ. Pro. § 2939, last clause. 

Board of Water Comiur's of CoJioes v. 
Lansing, 45 JST. Y. 19. Followed (Report 
by less than all of the members of an assess- 
ment commission) in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 539, 573. 

Board man v. Gaillard, 1 Hun, 217; s. c, 3 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 695. Affd in 60 KY. 
614. See Wood v. Merritt. 

T. Balliday, 10 Paige, 223. Explained 

(Assignment for benefit of creditors — pre- 
ferences) in Burrill on Assign. § 179, 4 ed. 
Quoted in Id. § 166. Quoted and collated 
with other cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 212. 

T. Lake Shore, &c. R. B. Co., 8 Week. 

Big. 347. Aff'd in 84 A T . Y. 157. See 
Garnsey v. Rogers. Decision in 84 N. Y. 
followed (Right to dividends on stock) in 
Manning «. Quicksilver Mining Co., 24 Hun, 
360, 362; Followed with Mannings. Quick- 
silver Mining Co., 24 Hun, 361, in Jermain 
<o. Lake Shore & M. S. R'y Co., 91 JST. Y. 
483. ReafPd in Prouty v. Lake Shore & M. 
S. R. R. Co., 85 K Y. 272, 274. 

t. Supervisors of Tompkins, 22 Bun, 

231. Rev'd in 85 2v". Y. 359. Decision in 
85 N. Y. followed (Jurisdiction of county 
judge to order repayment of tax) in Matter 
of Coleman, 30 Hun, 544. Explained in 
dissenting opinion in Curtis v. Richland 
(Mich. 1885), 23 Northw. Rep. 175, 181. 

Bockes v. Hathorn, 17 Hun, 87. Further 
proceedings in 20 Hun, 503; 78 N. Y. 222; 
Id. 228. See Kilmer v. Hathorn. Decision 
in 17 Hun disting'd (Extra allowance in 
foreclosure) and Hunt «. Chapman, 62 iV. Y. 
333, followed, in Rosa v. Jenkins, 31 Hun, 
384. 

v. Lansing, 13 Hun, 38. Affd in 74 K 

Y. 437. Decision in 74 N. Y. disting'd 
(Action to remove cloud upon title) in 
Mitchell v. Barnes, 22 Hun, 194, 198. 
Decision in 13 Hun discussed in Sedgw. & 
W. on Tr. of Tit.- to Land, § 179. Decision 
in 74 N~. Y. disting'd (impeaching fraud- 
ulent conveyance) in Bergen v. Carman, 79 
JV. Y. 153. Compare (Recovery of rents and 
profits by one not. in possession) Code Civ. 
Pro. § 1531. Quoted in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. 
of Tit. to Land, § 657. 

Bodine v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 51 N. Y. 
117, 123. Followed (Delegation of author- 
ity) in Eclectic Life Ins. Co. v. Fahrenkrug, 
68 III. 463. Cited in Wliart. Com. on Ag. 
§ 29. Disting'd (Waiver by special agent) 
in Thayer v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 
566. Applied in Lasher v. Northw. Nat. 
Ins. Co., 55 How. Pt. 328. Followed in 
Dean v. JEtna. Ins. Co., 2 Hun, 359; Chase 
v. People's Fire Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 458; 
Davis v. Lamar Ins. Co., IS Hun, 230; Van 



Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 68 K Y. 
437. Compare Thompson v. St. Louis, &c* 
Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 469. 

v. Killeen, 53 K Y. 93. See Bradstreet 

v. Clarke. Cited (Power of married woman 
to contract) in Cashman v. Henry, 75 N. Y. 
103, 112. 

y. Moore, 18 K Y. 347. See also (Re- 
demption) Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Yr 
507, 515. 

Bodle t. Hulse, 5 Wend. 313. Commented on 
(Executor— refusal to serve) in Willard on 
Executors, 144. 

Boehen v. Williamsburgli Ins. Co., 35 K Y. 
131. Followed and approved (Waiver of 
condition as to prepayment of premium) 
with Trustees of Baptist Church v. Brook- 
lyn Fire Ins. Co., 19 Id. 305; Goit v. Na- 
tional Protection-Ins. Co., 25 Barb. 189, in 
Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Booker, 9 Hekh. 
(Tenn.) 606; s. c, 24 Am. R. 344, 346. 
Relied on with Wood v. Poughkeepsie Mut. 
Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 619, in Mason v. Citizens' 
Fire, Marine & Life Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 
572; s. c, 27 Am. R. 602. 

Boeklen v. Hardenbnrgh, 37 Super. Gt. (J. 

6 S.) 110. Affd in 60 N. Y. 8. 
Bocrnin y. Sclienck, 41 K Y. 182. Quoted 

(Voidable acts of executors, and trustees) in 
Wait on Iraud. Gonv. § 471. 

Boese v. King, 78 AT. Y. 471 ; s. c, as Boese 
v. Locke, 1 Am. Insoh. R. 326; rev'g 17 
Hun. 270, which aff'd 53 How. Pr. 148. 
Explained (Assignment for benefit of cred- 
itors — bankrupt law) in Burrill on Assign. 
§ 47, n. 1, 4 ed. 

v. Locke. See Boese v. King. 

Bogardus v. Clarke, 1 Edw. 266. Aff'd in 
4 Paige, 023. See Clarke v. Fisher, for a 
history of the litigation of which this case 
is a part. Decision in 4 Paige, confirmed 
(Who may appear at probate of will, al- 
though not cited) by Code Civ. Pro. § 2617. 

v. Livingston, 2 Hilt. 236. Cited 

(Proof that appearance by attorney is au- 
thorized) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 564. 

v. Parker, 7 How. Pr. 303. Applied 

(Creditor having lien on entire premises, as 
party in partition) in Townshend v. Town- 
shend, 1 Abb. JST. a 81, 85. See Code Civ. 
Pro. § 1548. 

v. Rosend.ile Manufacturing Co., 4 

Sandf. 89. Rev'd \n7 KY. 147. Decisionin 

7 N. Y. disting'd (Parties in action to charge 
stockholders with debts of corporation) 
in Young ». N. Y. & Liverpool Steamship 
Co., 10 Abb. Pr. 229, 232. 

v. Trinity Ch., 4 Paige, 178. Aff'd in- 

15 Wend. III. See Fish v. Miller. Decision 
in 4 Paige cited, with other authorities 
(English statutes part of our common law) 
in 1 Kent Com. 473, n. b. Applied in Madi- 
son Ave. Bapt. Church ®. Bapt. Church in 
Oliver St., 4o N. Y. 131, 141. Explained 
(Statute of limitations — adverse possession) 
in Ang. on Limita. §§ 401, 430, 6 ed. 

v. , 4 Sandf. 'Ch. G33/758. Applied 

(Who may question right of corporation to 



BOG ART -BOLTON. 



83 



hold property) in Jones «. Habersham, 107 
U. S. 174, 188. 

Bogart t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 7 Cow. 158. 
Examined (Proper direction of certiorari) in 
Goodrich v. Com. of Lima, 1 Mich. 887. 

v. O'Regan, 1 E. D. Smith, 590. Applied 

(Reasonable time for vendor to re-sell) in 
O'Brien v. Jones, 47 Super. Ct. {J. & S. ) 
67, 76. 

r. Perry, 1 Johns. Gh. 52. Affd in 17 

Johns. 351. See Foote v. Colvin. Followed 
(Interest of cestui que trust not to be sold 
on execution) in Ontario • Bank v. Ro'otj 3 
Paige, 478. 

Bogert T. Haight, 9 Paige, 297. Discussed 
(Assignment for benefit of creditors, in con- 
nection with other assignments) in Burrill 
on Assign. § 359, 4 ed. 

v. Hertell, 4 Mil, 492. See Dodge v. 

Pond. Disting'd (Authority of executor as to 
mortgage) in Peoples. Miner, 82 Barb. 614, 
■which wasrev'd in 37 Barb. 473, which see. 
Dicta as to application of proceeds of sale of 
rea'l estate to payment of debts disapproved 
in Matter of Vandervoort, 1 Red/ 273, as 
contrary to reason and authority. Disting'd 
(Conversion of real estate into personalty) in 
Wilder v. Ilanney, 95 If. Y. 7. Applied in 
Denham v. Cornell, 7 Hun, 664 ; Meakings 
v. Cromwell, 5 N. Y. 142, which aff'd 2 
Sand/. 512, which see. Approvingly cited 
with Hertell v. Bogert, 9 Paige, 52, in 
Beechcr v. Buckingham, ISConn. 110; s. c, 
ii Am. Dec. 580, with note; as impliedly ad- 
mitting the authority of personal representa- 
tives to sell and transfer choses in action as 
well as other personal property. Approved 
(Distinction between executor and trustee) 
in Matter of Anderson, 5 Leg. Obs. 305. 

T. Hildrcth, 1 Gal 1 ; s. c, 2 iV. Y. 

Com. L. Law. eel. 35, with brief note citing 
cases on transitorv actions. 

v. Morse, 1 Jf. Y. 377. Affg Morse v. 

Bogert, 4 Den. 108. Decision in 1 N. Y. 
followed (Proof to sustain count for money 
lent) in Black v. White, 42 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 446. 

v. Vermilya, 10 Barb. 32. Decision on 

the new trial reported, as it seems, in 1 Gode 
li. N. S. 212, which was affd in 10 N. Y. 
447. See (Commencement of action) Code 
Gin. Pro. 1881, § 398, n. 

Bos ae v. Newcomb, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
251: Affd in 58 Jf. Y. 674, without 
opinion. 

Bohanan v." Peterson, 9 Wend. 503. Over- 
ruled (Liability of attorney to arrest) in 
Stage '0. Stevens, 1 Den. 267. 

Bohm, Matter of, 4 Eun, 558. Followed 
(Proceedings necessary before attachment) 
in Sutton «. Davis, 6 Hun, 237. 

Bonnet v. Lithauer. 7 Hun, 238. Appeal 
dismissed in 66 If. Y. 645, without opinion. 

Boingtou v. Lapham, 14 How. Pr. 360. 
Approved (Necessity that complaint con- 
form to summons) in Shafer o. Humphrey, 
15 How. Pr. 565. 

Boisaubin v. Reed, 2 Eeyes, 323. Approved 



(License to enter on land — when termin- 
ated) Kellam v. McKenstry, 6 Hun, 381, 
383, in which was affd in 69 N. Y. £64, 
which see. Applied in Alleghany Oil Co. 
v. Bradford Oil Co., 21 Hun, 26, 81. 
Applied (Cessation of right to make sever- 
ance from the realty) in Lacustrine, &c. Co. 
v. Lake Guano, &c. Co., 82 Jf. Y. 476, 482. 

Boisgerard v. N. Y. Banking Co., 2 Sand/. 
Gh. 23. Aff'd, it seems, but no opinion re- 
ported, in 4 Gh. Sent. 20. Decision in 2 
Sand/ Gh. applied (Right to obtain dissolu- 
tion of corporation) in . Masters v. Ecleotic 
Life Ins. Co., 6 Daly, 455, 457. 

Bokel v. Bokel, 3 Edw. 376. Disting'd 
(Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell 
v. Mitchell, 61 K Y. 398, 406. 

Bolen v. Crosby, 49 K Y. 183. Disting'd 
(Who may maintain action against trustee 
of manufacturing corporation for failure to 
file annual report) in Bronson e. Dimock, 4 
Hun, 014. Followed in Pier v. George. 14 
Hun, 572. Explained (Nature of trustee's 
liability) in dissenting opinion of Folgeb, 
J., in Jones v. Barlow, 62 N. Y. 210. Fol- 
lowed in Dintruff v. Crittenden, 1 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 143 (What passes by the 
transfer of an obligation given for a debt), 
and as overruling Battle v. Coit, 26 j\T. Y. 
143. Applied (Release of joint debtor) in 
Herries ». Piatt, 21 Hun, 132, 135. 

Boiler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 40 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 523. See Jarvis v. Driggs. Com- 
pared and applied (Proceedings void for 
want of jurisdiction) in Roderigas v. East 
River Savings Institution, 43 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 217, 227. Compare Jarvis v. Driggs, 
09 K Y. 143. 

Bolles T. Duff, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 330. Rev'd 
in 54 Barb. 215; s. c, 37 How. Pr. 162. 
As to latter decision, compare other pro- 
ceedings in 56 Barb. 567. Further proceed- 
ings in 43 N. Y. 409; s. c, more fully, 10 
Abb. Pi: N. S. 399; s. c, 41 How. Pr. 355. 
Also in 55 Barb. 313, 580; s. c, 7 Abb. 
Pr. K S. 385; 38 How. Pr. 492, 505. 
Decision in 54 Barb, disting'd, in Chamber- 
lain v. Groenlcaf, 4 Abb. N. O. 92, 95, as in- 
applicable to the motion there made for 
removal of a receiver. Decision in 43 N. 
Y. followed (Strict foreclosures) in Ross 
i). Boardman, 22 Hun, 527, 531. 

Bolt v. Rogers, 3 I'aige, 156. Followed 
(Denial of equitable relief to parties stand- 
ing in pari delicto) in Freeman v. Sedwick, 
6 Gill (Md.) 28; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 650, 
654, with note. 

Bolton v. Brewster. 32 Barb. 389, 395. 
Quoted (Interest of mortgagee) in 2 Washb. 
on Real. Prop. 4 ed. 108. " 

v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 166. See Jackson v. 

MeChesney ; Roderigas v. East River Savings 
Inst Followed (Effect of proceedings had 
without jurisdiction) in Boiler a. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 523. 
Commented on and approved in Ferguson v. 
Crawford, 70 AT. Y. Ih'i, Explained in 
Donnelly t. Libby, 1 Sweeny, 259, 279. 



84 



BOLTON— BOOKSTAVER. 



Followed (Jurisdiction of surrogates) in 
Rowe v. Parsons, 6 Sun, 338, 344. Disap- 
proved in Koderigas v. East River Sav'gs 
Inst., 63 N. Y. 469. Applied in Roderigas 
v. East River Savings Institution, 43 Super. 
Ct. (/. & S.) 217, 227. See Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, §§ 2473, a., 2476, n. Disting'd 
(Title under will, when held by one as 
trustee, and not as executor) in Clapp v. 
Brown, 4 Bed/. 200, 202. Disting'd (Power 
of executor to act before qualifying) in 
Humbert v. Wurster, 22 Sun, 407. 

v. Lawrence, 9 Wend. 435. See Jack- 
son t>. Anderson. See also (Sheriff's fees) 
Campbell v. Cothran, 56 K Y. 279, 284. , 

v. Taylor, 18 Abb. Pr. 385. Disapproved 

(Security for costs) in Elliott v. Wood, 5 
Sun, 594. Followed unwillingly in Lewis 
». Farrell, 46 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 361. Fol- 
lowed in Lyman Ventilating, &e. Co. ■». 
Southard. 1 Banm. & A. (0. S.) Pat. Cas. 
628. 

Bomanjee Byramjee Colah, Matter of, 6 
Daly, 51. Subsequent proceedings 6 Italy, 
308. 

Bom m er v. American Spiral Spring, &c. 
M'fg Co., 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 454; 
Affd in 81 K Y. 468. 

Bonaffe v. Fowler, 7 Paige, 576. Explained 
(Power of agent of corporation to bind it) 
in Any. & Am. on Corp. § 298, 11 ed. 

Bonard's Will, 16 Abb. Pr. N. SL 128. 
Test'y. Arg'ts, and opinion published in N. 
Y. 1872. Also arg'ts by E. T. Gebuy, N. 
Y. 1872. Disting'd (Evidence admissible on 
probate of will) in Hagadorn v. Conn. Mut. 
Life Ins. Co., 22 Sun, 252. Explained 
(Constructive conversion) in 2 Jarman on 
Wills, RinA. & T. ed. 214, n. 10. 

Bond v. McNiff, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 83. 
Aff' d in 41 Id. 543, on opinion below. Com- 
pare (Consent by widow to receive gross 
sum in lieu of dower) Code Civ. Pro. § 1569. 

V. Willct, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 105; 

s. c, 29 Sow. Pr. 47; 31 N. Y. 102. Fully 
reported, in 1 Eeyes, 377. Disting'd (En- 
forcement of execution after return-day 
without previous levy) in Hathaway *. 
Howell, 54 N. Y. 97, 104, 107. Followed 
(What constitutes valid levy) in Bardon «. 
Millins, 16 Weekly Dig. 58. 

Bonesteel v. Flack, 41 Barb. 435. See Steel- 
yards v. Singer. Disting'd (Conclusiveness 
of memorandum of sale) in Errico v. Brand, 
9 Sun, 655. Collated (Conditional sale, 
when void as to third persons) with other 
authorities, in Lewis v. McCabe, 21 Am. L. 
Reg. N. S. 217, with extended note. 

v. Garlinghouse, 60 Barb. 338. Ap- 
proved (Plaintiff, when bound to allege his 
official character) in Albro v. Rood, 24 Sun, 
72, 74. 

v. Lynde, 8 Sow. Pr. 226. Disting'd 

(Obtaining inspection of books and papers) 
in De Bary ». Stanley, 5 Daly, 413. Relied 
on in Commercial B'k of Albany v. Duuham, 
13 Sow. Pr. 542, 544. See (Contempt of 
court) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3001, n. 



t. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 6 Bom. 550. 

Affd in 22 N. Y. 162; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 
237. Decision in 22 N. Y. disting'd as in^ 
applicable to question involving authority 
of common council, — in Jones v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 7 Robt. 209. Disting'd (Liability 
of city for work done under void contract) 
in Moore v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 N. Y. 
248. 

Bonito v. Mosquera, 2 Bosw. 201. Referred 
to in Pegram v. Carson, 10 Bosw. 505,511, as 
overruled (Possession by factor that enables 
him to pass lien to pledgee) in Cartwright v. 
Wilmcrding, 24 JV". Y. 521. Approved in 
Howlaiid v. Woodruff, 60 2T. Y. 73, 82. 
Doubted in 58 Am. Dec. 164, n. 

Bonnaffe, Matter of, 18 Sow. Pr. 15. Affd 
in 33 Barb. 469, which was aff'd in 23 N. 
Y. 169. 

Bonnell v. Griswold, 68 N. Y. 294. Further 
appeal in 80 N. Y. 128. Also in 89 K Y. 
122. See Blake v. Wheeler; Pier v. Han- 
more. Decision in 80 N~. Y. applied (What 
constitutes dissolution of corporation) in 
Bruce v. Piatt, 80 K Y. 379, 389. Followed 
(Liability of trustee for filing untrue annual 
report of corporation) in Pier v. Hanmore, 
86 K Y. 95, 100. Disting'd (Conclusiveness 
of certificate of payment of corporate stock) 
in Veeder v: Mudgett, 95 W. Y. 295. Ap- 
plied (Statute not to be so construed as to 
create implication of penalty) in People ex 
rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Sun, 456, 464. 

v. Wlieeler, 1 Hun, 332; s. c, 3 Sup'm. 

Ct. (T. & C.) 557; 16 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 81. 
Affd in 68 N. Y. as Bonnell v. Griswold. 
Further decision in 18 Hun, 496, as Blake 
v. Wheeler, rev'd as Bonnell o. Griswold, 
80 K Y. 128, and Blake v. Griswold, Id. 
631. 

Bonner v. McPhail, 31 Barb. 106. Disting'd 
(Proof of referee's authority) in Eighmy v. 
People, 79 XT. Y. 557. 

Bouncy v. Seeley, 2 Wend. 481. Followed 
(Limit of suretv's recovery) in Garnsey v. 
Allen, 27 Me. 366. 

Bonsteel v. Vanderbilt, 21 Barb. 26; Briggs 
v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222. Overruled, 
in part (Excuse of non-performance of con- 
tract) in Williams *. Vanderbilt, 28 K Y. 
217. 

Bonynge v. Field, 44 Super. Ct. (J. &S.) 581. 
Affd in 81 N. Y. 159. 

v. Waterbury, 12 Sun, 534. Followed 

(Liability of attorney for services of steno- 
grapher) in Sheridan v. Genet, 12 Sun,- 
660; Bonynge v. Field, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & 
S.) 581. 

Boody v. Drew, 46 Sow. Pr. 459. Fully re- 
ported in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (7. & C.) 69. 

Bookstaver v.Glenny, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T.SC.) 
248. Said in Chapin v. Dobson, 78 K Y. 
74, 80, to have been affd by Ot. of App. 
Said in Unger v. Jacobs, 7 Sun, 220, 
223, to definitely settle the law (Effect of 
oral counter-agreement). 

v. Jayne, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (_T. & C.) 397. 

Rev'd in 60 K Y. 140. See Pechner v. 



BOOL— BORDEAUX. 



85 



' Phoenix Ins. Co. ; People v. Bostwick. 
Decision in 60 N. Y. disting'd (Parol evi- 
dence to vary terms of note) in Willse v. 
Whitaker, 22 Hun, 244. Disting'd in Bull's 
Head B'k «. Koebler, 1 City Ct. 270. Dis- 
ting'd (Defense to action on note given in 
settlement of action) in Whitlock v. Coulter, 
1 City Ct. 428. 

Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119; s. c, 13 K Y. 
Com. L. Law. ed. 82, with brief note, on 
conveyances by infants. See Stafford ». 
Boof. Discussed (Infants' contracts) in 2 
Kent Com. 237, n. b; Id. 238, n. d. Ex- 
plained in 1 Cliitty on Contr. 194, n. h, 11 
Am. ed. Explained in Matthewson v. John- 
son, Hoffm. 565. Followed in Van Nostrand 
■o, "Wright, Sill & I). 260. Commented 
1 on with Matthewson v. Johnson, Soffm. 
560, in Tylei- Inf. & Con. 2 ed. § 25, as to 
the rule respecting confirmation of feoff- 
ments made by infants. Cited as authority 
(Conveyance by married woman) in De 
Pierres v. Thorn, 4 Bosw. 296. Explained 
in Sherman «. Garfield, 1 Den. 329. 

Boomer v. Koon, 6 Hun, 645; s. c, less fully, 
6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 645. Followed 
(Evidence admissible under general denial) 
in Manning v. Winter, 7 Hun, 482, 484; 
Schwarz v. Oppold, 7 Daly, 121. Collated 
with other cases (Pleading alteration in a 
note) in 17 Am. R. 105, n. 

Boona v. Citizen's Sav'gs B'k of N. ¥., 21 
Hun, 235. Rev'd in 84 XT. Y. 83; s. c, 9 
Abb. N. C. 416; 38 Am. It. 498, with note. 
Decision in 84 N. Y. 83, limited (Devolu- 
tion of trust on administrator) in Kilbum v. 
See, 1 Dem. 353. Compare (Trusts of per- 
sonal property) Matter of Howell, 61 How. 
Pr. 179. 

Boormau v. Atlantic & Pac. R. R. Co., 17 
Sun, 555. Aff d in 78 N. Y. 599. 

v. Jenkins, 12 Wei.d. 566; s. c, 27 Am. 

Dec. 158, with note, containing citations. 
Followed (Parol evidence of custom to 
establish warranty) in Cassidy v. Begodcn; 
38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 180. Compare (Sale 
by sample) Waring v. Mason, 18 Johns. 
425. 

Boos v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.)364; mem. a. c, inillun, 133. 
Aft'd in 64 N. Y. 236. 

Bootli v. Aminerman, 4 Bradf. 129. Fol- 
lowed and approved (Effect of bequest of 
interest payable annually) in Welsh v. 
Brown. 14 Vroom (A7! J.) 45. 

v. Bierce, 40 Barb. 114. Rev'd in 38 

N. Y. 463. 

v. Boston & Alb. K. R. Co., 67 K Y. 

593. Further decision in 73 K. Y. 38 ; s. c, 
29 Am. R. 97, with note. See Crispin v. Bab- 
bitt; Laning v. N. Y. Central, &c. It. R. Co. ; 
Malone v. Hathaway. Decision in 73 N. Y. 
explained and followed (Master's liability 
for injury to servant) in Fuller v. Jewett, 
80 N. Y. 46, 52. Applied in McCosker ». 
Long Island R. R. Co., 21 Sun, 500, 507. 

v. Bnnce, 35 Barb. 496. Rev'd in 24 

N. Y. 592. Subsequent decisions'in '61. N. 



Y. 246; 33 Id. 139. Decision in 24 N. Y. 
disting'd (Admissibility of evidence to 
show fraudulent character of arrangement 
by which property is held by judgment 
debtor) in Smith v. Van Olinda, 48 jV. Y. 

171. 

v. Cleveland Rolling Mills Co., 11 Sun, 

278. Affd in 74 N. Y. 15. Former decision 
in 6 Sun, 591. Decision in 74 N~. Y. fol- 
lowed (What is implied in contract) in Jones 
v. Kent, 8 Abb. N. C. 300, 304. 

v. Cornell, 2 Redf. 261. Rev'd as Five 

Points House of Industry v. Amerman, in 
11 Sun, 161. 

— v. Eighmie, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 378. 
AfTd in 60 N. Y. 238; s. c, 19 Am. R. 171. 

y. Farmers' & Mech. Nat. Bank, 4 ' 

Lans. 301. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 396. Further 
decisions in 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 45; s. c, 
65 Barb. 457 ; also in 1 1 Sun, 258, and the 
latter affd in 74 N. Y. 228. Decision in 74 
JV. Y. cited (Recovery by partner for sums 
paid on account of partnership) in Story on 
Partn. 7 ed. § 221. n. 

v. Kitchen, 7 Sun, 255. Further decis- 
ions in Id. 260 ; also in 3 Redf. 52. 

v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22. Rev'g Flint 

v. Craig, 59 Barb. 319. Decision in 56 N. 
Y. criticised as extreme (Effect of altera- 
tion of note payable "to order") in 17 
Am. R. 102, n. 

v. Smith, 5 Wend. 107. Limited (Effect 

of decision on demurrer against one who 
has succeeded on trial of issues of fact) in 
Osborne v. Lawrence, 9 Wend. 445. 

v. Spuyten Duyyil Rolling Mill Co., 

3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 368. Aft'd in 60 
S. Y. 487. Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. fol- 
lowed (Measure of damages for breach of 
contract of sale) in Laird i>. Townsend, 5 
Sun, 107. Decision in 60 JT. Y. explained 
in Ben), on Sales, § 882, n. a (Bennett's 
Am. ed.). Explained in 2 Id. § 1 337 (Cor- 
bin's 4 Am. ed.); Id. n. k. Included (Con- 
sequential damages) in Sedgw. Cases on 
Dama. 331. Disting'd in Allis v. McLean, 
48 Mich. 432. 

v. Sivezey, SKY. 276. See Paige v. 

Cagwin ; Stafford ». Rice. Limited (Admis- 
sibility of admissions of former owner of 
chattels, &c.) in Schenck v. Warner, 37 
Barb. 263. Applied in Smith ». Exchange 
Fire Ins. Co., 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 500; 
Simpson v. McKay, 3 Sun, 322; Johnson v. 
Hicks, 1 Lans. 159; Edington u. Mutual 
Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 193. Followed in 
Tousley v. Barry, 16 N. Y. 500. Criticised 
aud applied to receipt given bv mortgagee, — 
in Foster v. BesAs, 21 N. Y. "250. Re-aft'd 
(Onus on one who impeaches transfer) in 
Townsend v. Stearns, 32 N.Y. 215; Thomas 
v. Murray, Id. 612. 

Bordeaux v. Erie R.Co., 8 Sun, 579. Criti- 
cised as not well considered, and as opposed 
to reason and authority (Extra fare, in case 
of ticket-office being closed) in article on 
"Discriminative Traffic Rates" in 16 Am. 
Law Rev. 818, 827. 



86 



BORDEN— BOSTON & ALBANY R. E. CO. 



Borden t. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121; s. c, 8 Am. 
Dee. 255. See Bradshaw «. Heath ; Hitch- 
cock v. Aiken ; Hoffman v. Hoffman ; Hug- 
gins v. King; Jackson v. Jackson; Kinnier 
b. Kinnier; Shumway n. Stillman; Starbuck 
e. Murray. Collated (Validity "of foreign 
divorce) with other cases, in 7 Am. Dec. 
206, n., and there approved. Discussed in 
3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 212. Explained in 2 
Bishop on Mar. & D. § 163, a, n. 3, 6 ed. 
Discussed in 2 Kent Com. 109. See Brad- 
shaw v. Heath, 13 Wend. 407- Approved 
and followed with Vischer v. Vischer, 12 
Barb. 640. in McGiffert v. McGiffert, 31 
Barb. 69; Phelps v. Baker, 60 Barb. 107. 
Followed in Holmes v. Holmes, 4 Lans. 391 ; 
People v. Baker, 76 K Y. 82. Disting'd in 
Hill v. Hill, 28 Barb. 26; Hunt v. Hunt. 9 
Hun, 624, which was afl'd in 72 N. Y. 217, 
240, which see. Followed (Necessity of juris- 
diction) in Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 Johns. 40. 
Explained in Sheldon v. Wright, 5 K Y. 
516; Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 175. 
Applied in Denning v. Corwin, 1 1 Wend. 652 ; 
Spear v. Carter, 1 Mich. 20, which cited 
Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. 33. Followed 
(Effect of foreign judgment) in Harrod v. Bar* 
retto, 1 Hall, 162. Explained in Monroe v. 
Douglas, 4 Sandf. Oh. 180. Approved in 
Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 156. Exam- 
ined in Shumway ■». Stillman, 6 Wend. 451. 
Approved in Dearing v. B'k of Charleston, 5 
Oa. 497; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 300, 316. Ap- 
proved with Andrews v. Montgomery, 19 
Johns. 162; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 213, with 
note; in Bimeler v. Dawson, 4 Scam. (III.) 
536 ; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 430, 433 ; Shumway 
v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292 ; s. c, 15 Am. Dec. 
374, being followed as to the presumptions 
respecting the validity of such a judgment. 
Cited approvingly in 1 Kent Com. 261, 
n. b. Disting'd in Coleman v. McAnulty, 
16 Mo. 173; s. c, 57 Am. Dee. 229. 
Examined (Necessity of personal presence in 
court to sustain jurisdiction) in People ». 
Clark, 1 Parle, 368. 

v. South SideR R. Co. of Long Island, 

5 Hun, 184. Aff'd in 67 N. Y. 588, without 
opinion. 

Bordwell v. Collie, 1 Lans. 141. Aff'd in 
45 N. Y. 494. See Case v. Hall. Decision 
in 45 If. Y. applied (Action for breach of 
warranty, when maintainable) in Converse 
■». Miner, 21 Hun, 367, 374. Applied (Effect 
of implied warranty of title) in Matheny v. 
Mason, 73 Mo. 677. 

Boreel v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 2 Sandf. 552. 
Explained (Right to wharfage) in Langdon 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Abb. N. C. 314, 
326. Limited and questioned (Liability of 
interest in wharf to taxation) in Smith 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 68 N. Y. 552. 
Limited *and criticised in People ex rel. 
Smith v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 10 Hun, 207, 
210. 

Bork T. People, 1 6 Hun, 476. Writ of error 
dismissed in 78 K Y. 346. Affd in 83 
If. Y. 609, but without opinion. Further 



proceeding in 1 If. ' Y. Crim. B. 868, and 
that aff'd without noticing point decided 
here, in 91 If. Y. 5. 
Bornsdorff v. Lord, 41 Barb. 211; s. c, more 
fully, as Matter of Borsdorff, 17 Abb. Pr. 
168. Limited (Revivor) in Beach v. Reynolds, 
53 If. Y.5. 
Borst v. Beecker, 6 Johns. 332. Approved 
(Alienage as ground for challenge) in Schu- 
maker v. State, 5 Wise. 328; but compare 
Guykowskie v. People, 1 Scam. (111.) 476; 
S'towe ». People, 2 Id. 326 ; State v. Babcock, 
1 Conn. 401 ; Rex v. Tremaine, 5 B. & C. 
254; People ». Jewett, 6 Wend. 386. Dis- 
ting'd (Disqualification of juror as ground 
for reversal or for setting aside verdict) in 
Wassum n. Feeney, 121 Mass. 93; s. c, 23 
Am. R. 258, 260. 
v. Corey, 15 If. Y. 505. Affirms a decis- 
ion of the Supreme Court, which appears 
not to have been reported; see however, 
proceedings between the same parties, in 16 
Barb. 136. See Pratt v. Huggins. Approved 
(Distinction between personal obligation 
and security furnished by a reserved lien or 
mortgage) in Coles ». Withers, 33 Gralt. 
iVa.) 196. Collated with Heyer v. Pruyn, 
7 Pai. 465 ; and other cases (Right to en- 
force lien for debt barred by statute of 
limitations) in 31 Am. R. 41, n. Fol- 
lowed ''Definition of counterclaim) in Mul- 
berger Koenig, 22 Northw. Rep. 745, 747. 
v. Empie, 5 N. Y. 33. Disting'd (Res- 
ervations in. grants) in Bridger v. Piersou, 
1 Lans. 481. 

v. Lake Shore and M. S. R. R. Co., 4 

Hun, 346. Aff'd, it seems, in 66 K Y. 639, 
but without opinion. Decision in 4 Hun fol- 
lowed (Negligence of person injured while 
crossing railroad track, when a question for 
a jury) in Leonard u. N. Y. Central, &c. R. 
R. Co., 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 225. 

v. Spelman, 4 K Y. 284. Disting'd 

(Gift to wife) in Brouer v. Vandenburgh, 31 
Barb. 649. Applied in Fowler v. Butterly, 
44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 161. Approved 
(Reviewing question of fact) in Morris v. 
Husson, 8 W. Y. 205. Approved (Right to 
post-nuptial choses in action) in Ewell 
Lead. Cases on Inf., &c. 390. Applied 
(Effect of appeal from judgment) in Morgan 
v. Bruce, 1 Code R. K S. 367. 
Bort v. Smith, 5 Barb. 283. Approved (Im- 
proper evidence not ground for reversal) in 
Aldrich «. Maitland, 4 Mich. 212, citing 
Spencer v. Saratoga & Washington R. R. 
Co., 12 Barb. 382; Brock v. Waterbury, 
13 Id. 116. 
Bossange v. Ros9, 17 How. Pr. 566; s. c, 
more fully in 29 Barb. 576. See Aeby v. 
Rapelye. 
Boston & Albany R. R. Co., Matter of. 53 
]¥. Y. 574. See Milhau v. Sharp. Explained 
and applied (Extent of franchise of railroad 
corporation) in Prime v. Twenty-third St. 
R. R. Co., 1 Abb. N. C. 63, 67. Disting'd 
in Stranahan v. Sea View R'-y Co., 84 If. Y. 
312. 



BOSTON, &c. R R. CO.— BOSTWICK. 



87 



Boston & Albany K. R. Co. v. Village of 
Grecnbnsh, 5 Dans. 461. Affd in 52 N. Y. 
510. 

Boston Carpet Co. v. Jonrneay. 1 Daly, 
190. Afi'd in 36 N. Y. 384. See Leverick v. 
Meigs. 

Boston, Hoosnc Tunnel, &c. R'y Co., Matter 
Of, 79 Jf. Y. 64. Other proceedings in Id. 
69, also in 22 Hun, 176; 58 How. Pr. 167. 
See Matter of Black River, &c. It. R. Co. 

Boston, Hoosac Tunnel. &c. It. E. Co. t. 
Troy, &c. R. R. Co. See Boston, Hoosac 
Tunnel, &c. R'y Co., Matter of. 

Boston Locomotive Works v. Wright. See 
Stannard a. Mattice. 

Bostwick v. Abbott, 40 Barb. 331; s. c, 16 
Abb. Pr. 417. Compare (Judgment dismiss- 
ing complaint) Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. 

v. Atkins, 3 N. Y. 53. See Jackson ». Car- 
penter. Explained (Affirmance of sale of real 
property by infant) in 3 , Washb. on Real 
Prop. 4 ed. - 251, with Chapin ». Shafer, 49 
K Y. 407; Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641. 
Contrasted with contrary cases, in Goodnow 
». Empire Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 468; s. c, 
23 Am. L. Peg. JV. S. 329, where they are 
disapproved as laying down a rule which- 
should be established by legislature, not by 
the courts. 

v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 55 

Barb. 137. Rev'd in 45 K Y. 712. Decision 
in 45 N. Y. explained (Effect of bill of 
lading as evidence of contract) in Long v. 
N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 50 JV. Y. 76. See 
also Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56 JV. Y. 168, 174. 
Disting'd in Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. 
Memphis, &c. R. R. Co., 7 Run, 233, 
which was , aff'd in 72 JV. Y. 90, which 
see. Disting'd in Hill v. Syracuse, B. 
& K. Y. R. R. Co., 73 JV. Y. 351, 353; 
s. c, 29 Am. It. 163, with note. Applied 
(Oral evidence to vary written instrument) 
in Brewer's Fire Ins. Co v. Burger, 10 Hun, 
56, 58. Applied (Limitation of carrier's 
liability for negligence) in Magniu v. Dins- 
more, 56 N. Y. 168, 174. > 

v. Barlow, 14 Hun, 177, 179. Applied 

(Liability- of highway commissioners) in 
Warren v. Clement, 24 Hun, 472. 

v. Beiser, 10 Abb. Pr. 1 97. Subsequent 

decision in 40 JV. Y. 383. See further decis- 
ion in Bostwick v. Menck, 4 Daly, 68, rev'g 
8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 169. Decision in 4 Daly 
disting'd (Supplemental complaint) in Cohn 
v. Husson, 5 Cio. Pro. P. {Browne) 324. 

v. Brown, 15 Hun, 308. Followed (Costs 

against executor, &c.) and Woodruff v. 
Cook, 14 How. Pr. 481, disapproved in 
Bedell v. Barnes, 29 Hun, 589. Compare 
Code Civ. Pro. §§' 1814, 324G. 

v. Burnett, 11 Hun, 301. Rev'd in 74iV. 

Y. 317. See contrary to 11 Hun, (Assign- 
ment with preferences — validity of, under 
bankrupt act) Dodge v. Sheldon, 6 Hill, 9. 
Disapproved in Williams v. Pitts, 55 How. 
Pr. 331, on authority of Dodge v. Sheldon, 6 
Hill, 9 ; Seaman v. Stoughton, 3 Barb. Ch. 



344, and other cases. Compare 2 Perry on 
Trusts, 132, § 587; 145, § 597; Wheelock?). 
Lee, 5 Abb. N. C. 72. Collated with other 
cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 233. 

v. Champion, 11 Wend. 571. Affd in 

18 Id. 175. See Champion v. Bostwick; 
Van Santvoord v. St. John. Collated (Lia- 
bility of connecting carriers) with Straiton 
v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 
184; Briggs i>. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222; 
Milnor v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 53 JV. 
Y. 363 ; Kessler v. N. Y. Central. &c. R. R. 
Co., 61 Id. 538; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 
Id. 306, and other cases, in 35 Am. R. 
708, n. Applied with Fairchild v. Slo- 
cum, 19 Wend. 329, in Barter v. Wheeler, 
49 If. H. 9 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 434, 446. 
Applied with Fairchild v. Slocum, 19 Wend. 
329 ; Hart v. Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. 
Co., 8 JV. Y. 37 ; Smith v. N. Y. Central 
R. Co., 43 Barb. 225, and other author- 
ities, in Wolff v. Central R. R. Co., 68 Ga. 
653; s. c, 45 Am. R. 501. Discussed in 
Ang. on Carr. § 582, 5 ed. Collated and 
discussed (Liability of carrier beyond his 
line) with Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady 
R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 534; St. John v. Van 
Santvoord, 25 Id. 660 ; Wilcox v. Parmelee, 
3 Sand/. 610 ; Hart v. Rensselaer & Saratoga 
R. R. Co., 8 JST. Y. 37; Wibert v. N. Y. 
& Erie R. R. Co., 12 JV. Y. 245 ; Schroeder 
v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 55; 
Hunt v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 1 Hilt. 228 ; 
Dillon v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., Id. 231 ; Foy 
v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 24 Barb. 382; 
Russell ■». Liviugston, 16 N. Y. 515 ; Quimby 
v. Vanderbilt, 17 2V. Y. 306 ; Hempstead v. 
N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 28 Barb. 485; 
Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co., 29 
Barb. 35, and many other cases, in Gray v. 
Jackson, 51 N. H. 9; s. c, 12 Am. R. 1, 
27, 28, 29, 30. . 

v. Frankfield, 11 Hun, 475. Affd in 74 

N. Y. 207. 

v. Goetzel, 57 N. Y. 582, 585. Followed 

(Defendant, when not in custody, so as to 
be entitled to supersedeas) in Watt v. Healy, 
22 Hun, 492. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 
572, n„ 573, n. 

v. Menck, 40 JST. Y. 383. See Bost- 
wick 4i. Beiser. Disting'd (Title of re- 
ceiver in supplementary proceedings) in 
Verplanck v. Van Buren, 76 JST. Y. 247, 256. 
Followed in Olney v. Tanner {IT. S. Cir. 
Ct. S. D. N.Y., Dec. 1883), 17 Reporter, 8. 
Limited (Compelling assignment to receiver) 
in Clan Ranald v. Wyckoff, 41 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 527. Quoted (Who may be 
complainant in creditors' action) in Wait on 
Fraud. Conv. § 116. Quoted and explained 
(Receiver bringing judgment creditor's ac- 
tion) in High on Receiv. § 455, n. 1. 

v. Tioga R. R. Co., 17 How. Pr. 456. 

Followed (Extra allowance — when only to 
be given) in Merchants' Exch. Nat'l Bank 
v. Commercial Warehouse Co., 35 Super. Ct. 
{J. & S.) 214. 



88 



BOSTWICK— BOWEK 



T. Wildey, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 23; 

s. c, with points of counsel, 42 How. Pr. 
245. 

Bosworth t. Van der walker, 53 N. Y. 597. 
. Disting'd (Service on infant) in Ingersoll r>. 
Mangam, 84 K Y. 622, 626, which aff d 24 
Hun, 203, which see. 

Botsford t. Burr, 2 Johns. Oh. 409. See Boyd 
v. McLean; Fleming v. Gilbert; Steere v. 
Steere ; Stevens v. Cooper. . Followed (Proof 
by parol of resulting trust) with Steere v. 
Steere, 5 Johns. 1 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 256, in 
Pinnock®. Clough, 16 Verm. 500 ; s. c, 42 Am. 
Dec.52l, with note. Both these cases followed 
in Burden v. Sheridan, 36 Iowa, 125; s. c, 
14 Am. R 505, 508. Followed with Louns- 
bury v. Purdy, 16 Barb. 376, in McGovern 
v. Knox, 21 Ohio St. 547; s. c, 8 Am. B. 
80. Followed in Ilollida v. Shpop, 4 Md. 
465; s. a, 59 Ajn. Dee. 88. Followed (Parol 
agreements respecting lands) with Levy v. 

v Brush, 45 JV Y. '589, in Bauman v. Holz- 
hausen, 26 Hun, 505. 

v. McLean, 42 Barb. 445. Subsequent 

proceedings in 45 Id. 478. Decision in 42 
Barb, said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196, to have been 
aff'd by Ct. of App. in May, 1871. See 
Welles v. Yates. Decision in 45 Barb, fol- 
lowed (Relief against misdescriptions in 
written contract) in Wilson v. Van Pelt, 2 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 414. Followed in 
Albany City Sav'gs Inst., 87 JST. Y. 40, 47. 

Boucliand y. Bias, 10 Paige, 445. Rev'd in 
1 JV. Y. 201. Decision in 1 J/! Y. explained 
(Definition of voluntary assignment) in 
Burrill on Assign. 4 ed. § 3, n. 1. Ex- 
plained (Distribution of debtor's estate- 
priority of U. S.) in Id. § 440. 

v. , 3 Den. 238. Relied on (Conclu- 
siveness of admission of judgment rendered 
on demurrer) in Coffin v. Knott, 2 O. 
Greene {Iowa) 582 ; s. p., 52 Am. Dec. 
537, 539, with note. Explained (Former 
judgment as defense) in 2 Pars, on Contr. 
729, n. o. 

Bouck v. Wilber. See Sollick v. Adams. 

Boughen v. Nolan. Reported as Bowghen 
v. Nolan, 53 How. Pr. 485. 

Boughton Y. Bruce, 20 Wend. 234. Dis- 
ting'd (Demand, as condition precedent to 
right of action) in Schroeppel v. Coming, 
• 5 Den. 242. 

v. Carter, 18 Johns. 405. Disting'd 

(Negligence in one acting under authoritv) 
in Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 23 
JV Y. 42, 49. 

v. Flint, 13 Hun. 206. Rev'd in 74' 

N..Y. 476; s. c, 5 Abb. N. O. 215. See 
Gardner v. Gardner; Payne v. Gardiner; 
Tucker v. Tucker. With decision in 74 
JV. Y. compare (Effect of vouchers produced 
on accounting by executor) Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 2734. Decision in 74 JV Y. disting'd (Ju- 
risdiction of surrogate as to claim of 
administrator, &c.) in Richardson v. Root, 
19 Hun, 475. 

v. Mitchell. See Simmons v. Sherman. 

v. Otis, 29 Barb. 196. Aff'd in 21 JV. Y. 



261. See Broughton v. Otis; Corning v. 
McCullough ; Garrison v. Howe. Decision in 
21 JV. Y. examined and approved (Liability 
of trustees for debts of corporation) in Mc- 
Harg v. Eastman, 4 Robt. 635. Followed in 
Nimmons v. Tappan, 2 Sweeny, 652; Miller 
v. White, 57 Barb. 511; Steam Engine Co. 
v. Hubbard, 101 U. S. 188; Huguenot Nat. 
Bk. v. Studwell, 6 Daly, 13, 15; Shaler & 
Hall Quarry Co. v. Bliss, 27 JV. Y. 297; 
Carley v. Hodges, 19 Hun, 187. Applied in 
Craw v. Easterly, 4 Lam. 521. Disting'd 
in Duckworth v. Roach, 8 Dahj, 159, 162; 
Losee v. Bullard, 79 JV. Y. 406. Relied on 
in dissenting opinion of Folgek, J., in Jones 
v. Barlow, 62 JV. Y. 214. Applied to. stock- 
holder's liability, — in Lowry v. ■ Inmanj 2 
Sweeny, 148. 

Bonrs v. Tnckerman, 7 Johns. 538. See 
Person v. Grier. Disapproved (Privilege of 
witness not absolute) in Merrill n. George, 
23 How. Pr. 331, 333, 335. Compare Pol- 
lard v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 7 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. 70. 

Bontel t. Owens, 2 Sandf. 654. Limited 
(Effect of adjustment of costs without 
notice) in Gilmartin v. Smith, 4 Sandf. 
684. 

Bonton v. Bonton, 40 How. Pr. 217. Modi- 
fied on appeal by imposing payment of 
costs, in 42 Id. 1 1. See Mott v. Lansing. 

v. City of Brooklyn, 7 How. Pr. 198. 

Aff'd in 15 Barb. Sin. 

v. Neilson, 3 Johns. 414:. Relied upon 

(Validity of summary proceedings for 
penalties) in Beach v. Furman, 9 Johns. 
229, but distinguished therefrom in 48 Am. 
Dec. 276, n. Followed (Judgment rendered 
without notice) in Flint River Steamboat 
Co. i\ Foster, 5 Oa. 194; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 
248-254, with lengthy note collating cases. 

Bovec r. King, 11 Hun, 250. Affd. it seems, 
in 75 N. Y. 609, but without opinion. 

Boweu v. Bell, 19 Johns. 390. Disapproved 
(Allowing defendant to plead after default 
in justice's court) with Lowther v. Crummie, 
8 Cow. 87, and Snell v. Loucks, 1 1 Johns. 
69, approved in Pickert v. Dexter, 12 Wend. 
150. 

v. , 20 Johns. 338; s. c, 6 N. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 1035, with brief notes. 
Also reported in 11 Am. Dec. 286, with 
note, showing it to have been recently fol- 
lowed in N. Y. (Parol proof to explain con- 
sideration clause in deed). See PechneT v. 
Phajnix Ins. Co. ; Schemerhorn v. Vander- 
heyden ; Shephard v. Little. Followed 
with McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. ;4&0, in 
Goodspced v. Fuller, 46 Me. 147. Applied 
to case of agreement for conveyance, in 
Watson v. Blaine, 12 Serg. & It. (Pa.) 131; 
s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 669. 

v. Bowen, 2 Brad/. S36. See Williams 

v. Hutchinson. Applied (Liability for 
gratuitous services) in Hewett v. Bronson, 5 
Daly, 1, 7. Disting'd in Gallaher «. Vought, 
8 Hun, 87. 

v. Bradley, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Shdfon) 



BOWEN— BOWERY NAT. BANK. 



89 



226; s. c, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 395. Disap- 
proved (Usurious character of contract as 
determined by law of place) in Dickinson v. 
Edwards, 77 N. Y. 573 ; Clayes v. Hooker, 
4 Hun, 234. Approved in First Nat'l B'k 
of N. Y. v. Morris, 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 
182, 184, as preferable to Jewell v. Wright, 
30 JST. Y. 259. Followed in Wayne Co. 
Sav'gs B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. K G. 70, 88, 
91. 
y. Cooper, 2 jv". Y. Leg. Obs. 355. Ex- 
plained (Privileged communication) in 
Moak's Underhill's Torts, 1 Am. cd. 153. 

v. Cross, 4 Johns. Gh. 375. Relied on 

(Supplemental answer) in Stout v. Shew, 1 
Finn. (Wise.) 438; s. c, 42 Am. Dec. 579, 
587. 

T. Fenner, 40 Barb. 383. Explained 

(Conversion) in Monk's Underhill's Torts, 
1 Am. ed. ,582. 

y. First Nat. Bk. of Medina, 34 How. 

Pr. 408. Followed (Jurisdiction over 
national banks) in Cadle v. Tracy, 11 
Blatchf. G. Gt. 101, 10S. See to the con- 
trary (National banks as foreign corpora- 
tions) Code Civ. Pro. § 3343, subd. 18. 
See (Time of motion to vacate attachment) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 082, «. 

v. Idley, 1 Edw. 148. Affd in 11 Wend. 

227. 

v. , 6 Paige, 4fi. Examined (Power 

of amending bill) in Bank of Mich. v. Niles, 
Walk. Gh. 401 ; citing McElwain v. Willis, 
3 Paige, 505. Criticised (Jurisdiction of 
equity in suit to establish destroyed will) in 
Everitt v. Everitt, 41 Barb. 385. 

v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221. Disting'd (Repeal 

by implication) in Excelsior Petroleum Co. 
■o. Embury, 67 Barb. 261, 265; Pursell v. N. 
Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Super. Gt. (J. 
& S.) 396. Applied in Vallauce p. Bausch, 
28 Barb. 672 ; Spratt v. Huntington, 2 Han, 
344; Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Walker, 4 
J3. D. Smith, 267; Boyle's Estate, Tuck 6. 
Approved and applied in Wallace v. Bassett, 
41 Barb. 96; Whipple ». Christian, 15 Hun, 
325. Cited in Peck ». Peck, 8 Abb. N. C. 
400, 402. Followed (Application of statute 
regulating duties of directors) in Hatch v. 
Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. N. 0. 430, 
433. Disting'd (Transfer by corporation in 
contemplation of insolvency) in Gillet v. 
Moody, 5 Barb. 188. Explained in Harris 
v. Thompson, '15 Barb. 65. " Applied to 
effect of failure to elect corporate officers, — 
in People ex rel. Miller s. Cummings, 72 
- JV. Y. 437. Explained in Burrill on Assign. 
§ 65, 4 ed. 

v. Newell, 5 Sandf. 326. Rev'd in 8 

N. Y. 190. Subsequent decision in 2 Duer, 
584, which was aft'd in 13 JV. K 290. See 
Frith v. Barker. These decisions cited with 
other cases (Evidence of usage as to allow- 
ance of days of grace) in- 12 Am. L. Reg. 
N. S. 9. Decision in 13 N. Y. disting'd in 
Wayne Co. Sav'gs Bk. v. Low, 6 Abb. N. G. 
76, J*6. Included (Days of grace— what law 



to govern) in 2 Ames Cases on B. & N. 227, 
299. 

v. N. Y. Central R. It. Co., 18 N. Y. 

408. Approved (Degree of care required 
from carrier) in Smith v. N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co., 24 Id. 222, 224. Explained in Ang. 
on Oarr. § 569, n. a, 5 ed. Cited, with 
other eases (Ordinary care) in 14 Am. L. 
Peg. K 8. 266. 

v. Widner, 25 Hun, 61. Briefly reported 

in 12 WeeHy Dig. 525. 

Bowerlian's Case. See William's Case. 

Bovvers v. Smith, 10 Paige, 201. See Grant 
v. Van Schoonhoven. Followed (Action for 
construction of will, — who may not maintain) 
in Duncan v. Duncan, 4 Abb. Jf. C. 275, 
278. Applied in Post v. Hover, 30 Barb. 
324; Walrath n. Handy, 24 Barb. 355 ; Trow 
». Shannon, 59 How. Pr. 217 ; Bailey v. South- 
wick, 6 Bans. 363. Explained in Chipman 
v. Montgomery, 4 Hun, 742, which was 
rev'd in 63 N. Y. 231, which see ; Marlett 
v. Marlett, 14 Hun, 315. Approved and 
applied in Monarque v. Monarque, 19 Hun, 
332. Followed (Jurisdiction of such action) in 
Onderdonk e. Mott, 34 Barb. 113. Discus- 
sed (Ejectment, as disting'd from action for 
construction of will) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. 
of Tit. to Land, % 163. Disapproved (Devise 
of real estate in lieu of dower, — whether 
passing under residuary clause) in Waring 
v. Waring, 17 Barb. 560. Cited as author- 
ity (What included in residuary clause) in 
Youngs v. Youngs, 45 2V Y. 259. 

Bowery Bank v. Duncan, 12 Hun, 408. 
Collated and compared (Parol evidence to 
establish trust) in Randall v. Constaus, 23 
Northw. Rep. 530, 533. 

Bowery Extension Case, 2 Abb. Pr. 368; 
s. <!., 12 How. Pr. 97; Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y. ». Erben, 38 K Y. 311; Matter 
of Canal Street, 12 N. Y. 411; Matter of 
Sixty-fifth Street, 23 How. Pr. 256; Matter 
of Seventy-sixth Street, 12 Abb. Pr. 317. 
Reviewed and criticised (Appeal from order 
confirming report of commissioners for tak- 
ing lands for streets and public places in N. 
Y.) in Matter of Central Park, 4 Lans. 467; 
s. c, 61 Barb. 40. Contrary to Bowery Ex- 
tension case, see Matter of Canal and Walker 
Streets, 12 K Y. 406. Compare Pryor's 
Appeal, 5 Abb. Pr. 272. 

Bowery Nat. Bank v. Duryea, 54 How. Pr. 
450. Rev'd in 55 Id. 88, which was affd in 
74 JST. Y. 491 ; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 42. See 
also (Necessity of stating cause of arrest in 
complaint) Williams v. Norton, 54 Id. 509; 
Thompson v. Friedberg, Id. 519 ; Mather v. 
Hannaur, 55 Id. 1. Compare Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 550 n. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y.. 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 

& O.) 523; s. c, with further decision, in 
3 Hun, 039. Rev'd in 63 N. Y. 336. 
Further decision in 8 Hun, 224. See Phillips 
v. Gallant. Decision in 6J K Y. followed 
(Certificate of officer as prerequisite of 
payment of claim) in Bancker v. Mayor, &c 



90 



BOWEKY SAVINGS BANK— BOYD. 



of K Y., 8 Hun, 409. Limited in White- 
man v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y., 21 Hun, 117, 
121. See to the contrary, Milner v Field, 
5 Exch. 829. But see Abb. Tr. Er>. 372. 

Bowery Saving's Bank v. Richards, 6 
Sup'm. Ct. (T.& ft) 59; s. c, more fully, 
8 Hun, 866. Appeal dismissed in 62 If. 
Y. 631. See Bergh's Case. 

Bowles t. Van Horn, 11 Abb. Pr. 84. Op- 
posed (Costs on dismissal of complaint) in 
Perkins e. Butler, 42 How. Pr. 102. Over- 
ruled (Dismissal of complaint for neglect to 
prosecute) by Winchell v. Martin, 14 Abb. 
Pr. If. S. 47. 

Bowling Green Savings Bank v. Todd, 64 
Barb. 146. Aff'd in 52 If. Y. 489. See 
Rooney v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. Decision 
in 52 AT. Y. questioned (Attorney's lien) 
in Matter of Knapp, 8 Abb. If. C. 308, 
310, which was rev'd on other grounds in 

" 85 If.- Y. 284, 294, 298, which see. Said in 
31 Am. Dec. 759, «., collating cases, to have 
been reiterated in Hooper «. Welch, 43 Vt. 
171. Followed (Compelling payment by 
attorney to client) Matter of Fincke, 6 Daly, 
111. Explained in Porter t>. Parmly, 39 
(Super. Ct.. (J. & S.) 219, 239. 

Bowman v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & ft) 261. ASM in 59 If. Y. 521. 
Disting'd (Waiver by special agent) in Thayer 
v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 566. 

T. De Peyster, 2 Daly, 203. Relied on 

by Monbll, Ch. J. (Appeal from order al- 
lowing amendment of pleading) in Schreyors. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
277. See to the contrary Sheldon v. Adams, 
27 How. Pr. 179. 

v. Ely, 2 Wend. 250 ;, Messenger v. 

Holmes, 12 Id. 203. Explained (Change of 
venue) in People v. Webb, 1 Hill, 179. 

v. Rainetaux, Hoffm. Ch. 150. Quoted 

and collated (Assignment for benefit of 
creditors — death of assignee) with other 
cases, in Bishop on Assign. § 348. 

v. Tallman, 2Robt. 385; s. c, more fully, 

27 How. Pr. 212. Affd in 3 Abb. Ct. App. 
Dec. 182, n. ; s. c, 40 How. Pr. 1. Further 
decision in 2 Bobt. 632, reported more fully 
in 3 Id. 633. See Marsellis v. Thalhimer. 
Decision in 3 Bobt. applied (Execution 
issued before affirmance of judgment) in 
Rosenfield v. Palmer, 5 Daly, 318. 

■ v. Teall, 23 Wend. 306; s. c, 14 If. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 379, with brief note. Ex- 
plained (Waiver of damages for negligence 
of carrier) in McCormick v. Penn. Cen- 
tral R. R. Co., 80 If. Y. 353, 362. Dis- 
cussed (Delivery by carrier) in Ang. on 
Carr. § 333, n. 2, 5 ed. Included (Carriers' 
negligence in transporting goods) in Sedgw. 
Cases on Duma. 101. 

v. Troy & Boston' R. R. Co.. 37 Barb. 

516. See Halloran v. N. Y. & Harlem R. 
R. Co. Disting'd (Liability of railroad com- 
pany for killing animals strayingupon track) 
in Brady v. Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co., 1 
Hun, 378 ; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
538. 



Bowne v. Joy, 9 Johns. 221. See EmbreeV 
Collins. Followed (Pendency of foreign 
suit) in Walsh ». Durkin, 12 Johns. 101. 
Approved with Walsh v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 
99, in White e. Whitman, 1 Curt. C. Ct. 
494. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on, 
Coutr. 608, n. w. Followed with Walsh v. 
Durkin, 12 Johns. 101 ; Mitchell v. Bunch, 
2 Paige, 620 ; s. c, 22 Am. Dec. 669, in 
Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 485; s. c, 58 
Am. Dec. 433. 

y. Mellor, 6 Hill, 496. Followed (Re- 

covery on bond given on issuing of attach- 
ment by justice; in Northrup v. Garrett, 17 
Hun, 499. 

v. O'Brien, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 539. 

Another decision in 5 Daly, 474. 

v. Potter, 17 Wend. 161. See Sherwood 

v. Vandenburgh, Overruled, it seems, 
(Estoppel of husband's grantee as against 
claim of dower) in Sparrow v Kingman, 1- 
K Y. 242. Denied in Finn v. Sleight, 8 
Barb. 406. Discussed in 1 Waslib. on Real 
Prop. 4 ed. 238, 239. Approved (Right of 
grantee in possession to defend against all 
but owner) in May u. Sprecht, 1 Mich. 190. 
Citing Bancroft v. White, 1 Cai. 185. 

v. Underbill, 4 Hun, 130. Fully, re- 
ported in 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 344. 

v. AYitt, 19 Wend. 475. Disting'd 

(" Head of a family," under exemption laws)- 
in Bachman v. Crawford, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 
213; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 163, with note. 
Applied (''Householder") in Calhoun v. 
Williams, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 18; s. c, 34 Am. 
R. 759, 762. 

Boyce v. Bates, 8 How. Pr. 495. See to tho- 
contrary (Application for leave to issue 
execution to collect costs) Lucas ■». John- 
son, G How. Pr. 121; Mitchells. Wcstervelt, 
Id. 265, 311; Wetzel «. Schultz, 13 Id. 191. 
Approved and explained (^Enforcing at- 
torney's liability for costs) in Matter of 
Levy, 2 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 108: 

v. Brown, 7 Barb. 80. Reported below, 

in Royce ». Brown, 3 How. Pr. 391. See 
Arthur v. Brooks. 

v. People, 55 K Y. 644. Compare 

(Seduction, when accomplished under pro- 
mise of marriage. Relying on the promise) 
Cook .«. People, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
404. 

v. Washburn, 4 Hun, 792. Explained 

(Statute of Frauds— "goods, wares and 
merchandise ") in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 117, 
n. 5. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

V. Wight, 2 Abb. If. C. 163. See also 

(Acknowledgment and record of certificate 
given on making redemption) Code Cic. Pro. 
§ 1470. 

Boyd v. Bigelow, 14 How. Pr. 511. Followed 
(Costs on reference of claim against estate) 
in Munson v. Howell, 20 How. Pr. 59. For 
contrary decisions, see Van Sickler v. Gra- 
ham, 7 How. Pr. 208; Avery v. Smith, 9 Id. 
349. 

v. Brotherson, 10 Wend. 93. See Mit- 
chell «. Culver. Approved (Supplying oniis- 



BOYCE—BOYNTON. 



91 



sions in promissory note) in Connor v. 
Routh, 7 How. {Miss.) 176; s. c, 40 Am. 
Dec. 59. 

t. Colt, 20 How. Pr. 384. Followed 

(Nullifying testimony of party) in Lynch v. 
Pyne, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 11. See other 
cases collected (Weight of testimony of 
parties) in 1 Abb. 363, n. 

v. (limimings, 17 N. Y. 101. Applied 

(Holder of note for value) in Bank of the 
State of N. Y. v. Vanderhorst, 32 N. Y. 
553. Collated (Indorsement of note as 
consideration for suspending proceedings in 
collection of debt) with other cases, in 2 
Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 241. 

v. De La Montagnie, 1 Hun, 096; s. c, 

4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 148; 47 How. Pr. 
433. Affd in effect on appeal from a second 
trial in 73 JV. Y. 498; s. c, 29 Am. R. 197. 
Decision in 73 N". Y. approved (Ground for 
setting aside conveyance) in Kleeman v. 
Reltzer, 22 Northw. Rep. 793, 796. See 
(Transfer of property from wife to husband, 
when void) Darlington's Appeal, 86 Penn. 
St. 512 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 726. Quoted 
and discussed (Validity of illegal convey- 
ances as between the parties) in Wait on 
Fraud. Conn. § 400. 

v. Dowie, 65 Barb. 237. Compare 

(Necessity of possession, in order to main- 
tain action for partition) Code Civ. Pro. § 
1532. 

v. Dnnlap, 1 Johns. Ch. 478. Followed 

and Van Wyck v. Baker, 16 Hun, 168, 
disting'd (Allowing fraudulent conveyance 
to stand as security) in Davis v. Leo- 
pold, 87 AT. Y. 620. Reviewed in Taylor v. 
Atwood, 47 Conn. 498, 508. Disapproved as 
contrary to reason and precedent, in Gar- 
land v. Rives, 4 Rand. (Va.) 283; s. c, 15 
Am. Dec. 756-774. Approved and followed 
in McMeekins v. Edmonds, 1 Hill (S. C.) 
288; s. c, 26 Am. Dee. 203. Distinguished 
in Moore v. Tarltou, 3 Ala. 444; s. c, 37 
Am. Dec. 701, with note. Relied on in dis- 
senting opinion, in Miller v. Tollrson, 1 
Harp. Eq. (S. C.) 145; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 
712. Followed in U. S. v. Giiswold, 8 Fed. 
Rep. 504. Commented on in Wait on Fraud. 
Conn. § 192. 

v. Foot, 5 Bosw. 110. Cited (Entries 

made in books of partnership after disso- 
lution) in 2 Whart. Cum. on Ev. § 1132. 

v. Gray, 34 How. Pr. 323. Followed 

(Necessity that affidavit of assessors be an- 
nexed to assessment roll) in Bradley v. 
Ward, 58 Jf. Y. 401, 406. 

v. Hitchcock, 20 Johns. 76 ; s. c, 6 K Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 939, with brief note. See 
Kellogg v. Richards; Seymour?). Minturn; 
Witberby v. Mann. Approved (Effect of 
additional security for less sum as accord 
aud satisfaction) in Kellogg t>. Richards, 14 
Wend. 117; Booth v. Smith, 3 Id. 66. Ap- 
proved with Kellogg «. Richards, 14 Wend. 
116. in Brooks v. White, 2 Mete. {Mass.) 
283; s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 95, with note. 

V. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 05. Examined and 



followed (Parties in creditor's suit) in Reed 
v. Stryker, 12 All. Pr. 47, 50. See Morton 
v. Weil, 33 Barb. 30, 36. Discussed (Mul- 
tifarious pleadings in creditor's suit) in 
Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 151. 

y. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 382. See Steere 

v. Steere. Reviewed (Parol evidence to 
establish resulting trust) with Botsford v. 
Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 404; Foote v. Colvin, 3 
Johns., 216; s. c, 3 Am. Dec. 478, in Neill 
v. Keese, 5 Tex. 23; s. p., 51 Am. Dec. 745. 
Reluctantly followed with Botsford v. Burr; 
Jackson®. Matsdorf, 11 Johns. 91; s. c, 6 
Am. Dec. 355, in Smitheal v. Gray, 1 
Humph. (Tenn.) 491; s. c, 34 Am. Dee. 
664, 666. Cited with approval in Burleigh 
v. White, 64 Me. 23. Followed (Trust 
resulting by presumption of law) in Baker 
v. Vining, 30 Me. 121; s. <?., 50 Am. Dee. 
617, with note. Followed (Relief against 
written instrument on the ground of fraud 
or mistake) with Giliespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. 
Ch. 585; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 559, in Greer v. 
v. Caldwell, 14 Ga. 207; s. c, 58 Am. Dec, 
553. 

y. McDonongh, 39 How. Pr. 389. Dis- 
ting'd (Discharge of accommodation indorser 
as surety) in Converse v. Cook, 25 Hun, 
44, 48. 

j. Plnmb, 7 Wend. 309. Explained 

(Partnership — firm loans) in 1 Collyef on 
Partn. § 416, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. 

v. Schlesinger, 59 N. Y. 301. Disting'd 

(Specific performance) in Bensel v. Gray, 80 
Jf. Y. 517, 521. 

v. Weeks, 5 Hill, 393. Aff'd in 2 Den, 

321 : s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 749, with note, col- 
lecting citations. 

Boyer v. Brown, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 698; 
s. c, 1 Hun, 615. Disting'd (Payment of 
costs as condition of granting new trial 
where verdict is against evidence) in Bailey 
v. Park, 5 Hun, 41. 

v. Schofield, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 177; 

s. c, 2 Keyes, 628. Followed (Conclusive- 
ness of judgment in justice's court on ques- 
tion relating to title to land) in Masten v. 
Olcott, 60 How. Pr. 112, which was rev'd 
in 24 Hun, 587, which see. 

Boyle v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 32. 
Rev'd in 71 H. Y. 1. 

Boylen v. MeAvoy, 29 How. Pr. 278. Ap- 
plied (Necessity for appointment of guardian 
ad litem) in Jessuru'n v. Mackie, 61 How. 
Pr. 261 ; s. c. 24 Hun, 624. Followed in 
McMurray v. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. 

Boylstou v. Wheeler, 2 Hun, 622} s. c, 5 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. &0.) 179. Compare (Evi- 
dence in action, to compel determination of 
claims to real property) 61 N. Y. 521. 

Boynton v. Andrews, 63 K Y. 93. Disting'd 
(Evasion of stockholder's liability through 
fraudulent valuation) in Brown v. Smith, 1'3 
Hun,, 408, 412. Applied in Thurber r. 
Thompson, 21 Hun, 472, 476. Disting'd in 
Van Cott v. Van Brunt, 82 K Y. 535, 542. 

v. Boynton, 16 Abb. Pr. 87. Fully 

reported iu 25 How. Pr. 490. Said in 41 



92 



BO YNTON- BR ADLE Y. 



N. T. 619, to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. 
iu June, 1869. 

v. Clinton & Essex Ins. Co. , 16 Barb. 254, 

258. Applied (Effect of removal of property 
insured, upon risk) in Annapolis, &c. K. It. 
Co. ». President, &c. Baltimore Fire Ins. 
Co., 32 Md. 37; s. c, 3 Am. It. 112. Dis- 
ting'd and Townsend e. Northwestern Ins. 
Co., 18 N. Y. 168, relied on in MeClure v. 
Girard Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 43 Iowa, 349 ; 
s. c, 22 Am. B. 249, 250, 253, with note 
collating Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. ». Har- 
mony Fire Ins. Co., 51 Barb. 33; 41 N. Y. 
619; Webbe. Nat'l Ins. Co., 2 Sandf. 497; 
Boyce v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 
240; s. c, 14 Am. B. 249, and other 
cases. 

v. Hatch, 47 N. Y. 225. Limited and ex- 
plained (Stockholder's liability) in Schenck 
v. Andrews, 57 iv". Y. 133, 137, 144. Opinion 
by Allen, J., followed in Douglass v. Ire- 
land, 73 iv". Y. 100, 102. Disting'd iu Van 
Cott v. Van Brunt, 82 JST. Y. 535, 542. 

y. Hoyt, 1 Ben. 53. See Hone v. Van 

Schaick; Meserole v. Meserole. Disting'd 
(Perpetuities) in Eells «. Lynch, 8 Bosw. 
478. Followed in Jennings v. Jennings, 7 
iv". Y. 549, which aff'd 5 Sandf. 174, which 
see. Kecognized in Beekman v. Bonsor, 23 
N. Y. 316. Explained in dissenting opinion 
of Earl, J., in Heermans ». Robertson, 64 
N. Y. 351. Commented on in 1 Jarm. on 
Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 511, n. 

v. Page, 13 Wend. 425. Applied (Va- 
lidity of contracts made on Sunday) in 
Adams «. Hamell, 2 Bovg. {Mich.) 73 ; s. c, 
43 Am. Bee. 455, with note. Explained in 

2 Pars, on Contr. 759, n. q. 

Brahin v. Hyde, 30 Barb. 265. Rev'd in 32 
HT. Y. 519. Decision in 32 N. Y. followed 
(Agreement for payment, not payment 
within statute of frauds) in Mattice v. Allen, 

3 Keyes, 492. Explained in Justice v. Lang, 
42 N. Y. 493, 514, as not holding that 
memorandum required by statute need be 
signed by both parties. 

Brace v. Beatly, 5 Abb. Pr. 221. Rev'd in 7 
Abb. Pr. 445. 

Bracket v. McNair, 14 Johns. 170; s. c, 7 
Am. Bee. 447, with note wherein it is shown 
to have been followed and approved (Mea- 
sure of damages, in action against carrier). 
See Pinney v. Gleason. Approved in 
O'Connor v. Forster, 10 Watts (Pa.) 418. 
Explained in Ang. on Garr. § 484, 5 ed. 
Included with note in Sedgw. Gases on 
Bama. 99. 

v. Wilkinson, 13 How. Pr. 102. Over- 
ruled (Right of plaintiff to anticipate de- 
fense in his complaint) in Sands v. St. John, 
23 Id. 140. 

Brackettv. Barney, 28 JST. Y. 333; Worrall 
». Munn, 5 Id. -238; Jackson v. Catlin, 2 
Johns. 259. Cited as authorities (Effect of 
delivery of deed to grantee) in Miller v. 
Fletcher, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 403; s. c, 21 Am. 
B. 356, 362. 

V. Biiuui, 50 N. Y. 8. Compare (Barring 



wife of mortgagor) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2338- 
2395. 

Bracy v. Kibbe, 31 Barb. 273. See People v. 
Jackson. Applied (Seduction — mitigation) 
in Wandell v. Edwards, 25 Hun, 498, 501. 
Cited with other authorities (Ability of 
step-father standing in loco parentis to 
maintain action for seduction) in Kinney v. 
Langhenour, 89 K G. 365. 

Bradford v. Fox, 39 Barb. 203; s. c, 16 Abb. 
Pr. 51. Rev'd in 38 N. Y. 289. Decision 
in 38 N. Y. applied (Delivery of draft as 
payment of debt) in First Nat. Bk. of 
Meadville v. Fourth Nat. Bk. of N. Y., 24 
Hun, 241, 243. 

v. Kiinberly, 3 Johns. Ch. 431. Relied 

on (Actions between partners) in dissenting 
opinion of Stephen, J., in Causten «. Burke, 

2 Harr. & O. (Aid.) 295; s. c, 18 Am. Bee. 
297, with note. Followed (Right of com- 
pensation between partners) with Franklin v. 
Robinson, 1 Johns. Ch. 165, in Beatty u. 
Wray, 19 Penn. St. 516; s. c, 57 Am. Bee. 
677. Included with notes (Factor's lien) 
in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas.-5 ed. 866. 

Bradhurst v. Columbian Ins Co., 9 Johns. 
9 ; s. c, 4 N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 646, 
with brief note, saying it is of doubtful au- 
thority, and to be sustained, if at all, on the 
precise ground that the intention was not 
to destroy the ship. Applied (Sacrifice 
when not voluntarily, so as to entitle to 
contribution) in Crockett v. Dodge, 12 Me. 
190; s. c, 28 Am. Bee. 170, with note. 
Reviewed (Contribution in case of stranding 
to save vessel and cargo) with Heyliger v. 
N. Y. Firemen's Ins. Co., 1 1 Johns. 85, in 
Bevan v. Bank of U. S., 4 Whart. (Pa.) 
301; s. c, 33 Am. Bee. 64, with note. 
Opposed in Columbian Ins. Co. v. Ashby, 
13 Pet. 331, and cases cited; Caze v. Reilly, 

3 Wash. Circ. Ct. B. 298 ; Gray v. Wain, 
2 Serg. & B. 229. Limited in Scudder v. 
Bradford, 14 Pick. 13. But see Slater v. 
Hayward Rubber Co., 26 Conn. 129. 

Bradish v. (Jibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 550. Fol- 
lowed (Execution of power by married 
woman) in Thompson «. Murray, 2 Hill Ch. 
(S. C.) 204; s. c. 29 Am. Bee. 68, with 
note. Included in Ewell Lead. Cos. on 
Inf., &c. 259. Discussed in 2 Kent Gom. 
172, and cited as having been approved by 
the supreme court of Pennsylvania in West 
v. West, 10 Serg. & R. 447. 

v. Schenck, 8 Johns. 151. See Putnam 

v. Wise. Reviewed and modified (Nature 
of contract to work farm on shares) in Tay- 
lor v. Bradley, 39 N. Y. 129. See to the 
contrary (Effect of such contract in creating 
tenancy in common of the crop) People v. 
Smith, 3 How. Pr. 226. Disting'd (Right 
of action, in case of such contract, for breach 
of the close) iu Woodruff v. Adams, 5 Blachf. 
(Ind.) 317; s. c, 35 Am. Bee. 122. 

Bradley v. Aldrich, 40 N. Y. 504. Explained 
(Demand of relief, as characteristic of the 
action) in Secley v. N. Y. Nat. Exch. Bk., 8 
Baly, 400, 405. Approved iu Pomerqy 



BRADLEY -BE ADT. 



93 



on Bern. § 580. Approved (Necessity for 
averment of damages in complaint) in Id. § 
84, n. 3. Disting'd in Andrew v. N. J. 
Steamboat Co., 11 Hun, 494. Explained 
(Equitable relief) in Beck v. Allison, 4 Duly. 
445. Explained (Waiver of constitutional 
right) in Nason a>. Luddington, 55 How. Pr, 
343. 

■ v. Angel, 3 XT. Y. 475. See Keep v. 

Lord; Lindsays. Jackson. Approved and 
followed (Set-off as between solvent and 
insolvent) in Keep v. Lord, 2 Duer, 78. 
Compare Seymour v. Dunham, 24 Hun, 93. 
Disting'd in Dougherty v. Central Nat. Bk., 
93 Penn. St. 227; s. c, 39 Am. B. 750. 
Disting'd with Martin v. Kunzmuller, 37 N~. 
Y. 396, in Coates v. Donnell, 48 Super. Ct. 
{J. & S.) 46. 

v. Baxter. See Thome v. Cramer. 

v. Bosley, 1 Barb. Oh. 125. Applied (En- 
forcing equitable lien for purchase money) in 
Mills v. Bliss, 55 N. Y. 139, 144. Approved 
(Nature of relief given in equity) in 
Whipple v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 446. 

v. Buffalo, &e. R. B. Co., 34 K Y 432. 

See Corwin v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. 
Followed (Duty of railroad companies to 
fence against animals) in Rhodes «. Utica, 
Ithaca, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 344. 

v. Burwell, 3 Den. 61. See Lawrence 

v. Trustees, &c. Explained (Contribution 
against estate of deceased surety) in John- 
ston v. Harvey, 84 K Y. 363, 365. 

v. Manning, 12 Weekly Dig. 497. From 

mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 603, it appears, that 
the opinion was delivered by Boakdman, J. 

v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 3 

Lans. 341. Rev'd in 45 N. Y. 422. Decis- 
ion in 45 N. Y. disting'd (Restriction in 
policy as to cause of death) in Shader v. 
Railway Passenger Assurance Co., 66 N. Y. 
AAA. 

v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 3 Sup'm. 

Ct. (T. & C.) 288. Affd in 62 tf. F. 99. 
Decision in 62 If. Y. explained (Master's 
liability for servant's torts) in Moak's Under- 
bill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 59. 

v. Parker, 2 Month. L. Bui. 21. Ques- 
tioned (Amendment of affidavit, &c. to sup- 
port order of arrest or attachment) in 
Southern Inland Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Sherwin, 
1 Civ. Pro. B. 44, 47. 

v. People, 56 Barb. 72. Included with 

notes (Collecting gunpowder as nuisance) 
in Lawson Lead. Gas. (Crim. L.) Simplified, 
149. 

v. Boot, 5 Paige, 637. Examined (Ex- 
amination of defendant in chancery as a 
witness, and its consequences) in Norris v. 
Hurd, Walk. Gh. 105. Disting'd (Equitable 
lien) in Attorney Genl. v. Continental Life 
Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 325, 329 ; s. c, 27 Am. B. 
55. Followed (Title to dividends)in Herr- 
man v. Maxwell, 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
347, 351. 

v. Ward, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 413. 

Aff' d in 58 R. Y. 401. See Merritt v. Vil- 
lage of Portchester. 

T. Wheeler, 4 Bobt. 18. Affd in 44 



N. Y. 495. Reviewed ,Troof of local custom 
without proof of knowledge) with other 
cases, in Walls «. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464, 474. 

Bradner v. Faulkner, 12 N. Y. 472. See 
Cooke v. Meeker; Lawrence v. Embree. 
Approved (Interest on legacies) in Fisk's 
Estate, 1 Tuck. 122; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 209, 
which was, however, rev'd in Campbell ■». 
Cowdrey, 31 How. Pr. 172 ; where Lawrence 
v. Embree, 3 Bradf. 364, was followed in 
preference. See Devlin's Estate, 1 Tuck. 
460. Cited as authority in Lynch t>. Maho- 
ney, 2 Bed/. 437. Followed in Wheeler v. 
Ruthven, 2 Bed/. 491, 494. 

v. , 34 Jf. Y. 347. Explained (Sale 

of growing crops by personal representative) 
by Sutherland, J., in Sherman «. Willett, 
42 K Y. 146, 154. 

t. Howard, 14 Hun, 420. Affd in 75 

N. Y. 417. 

v. Superintendent of Poor of Orange 

County, 9 Wend. 433. See (When a common 
law certiorari may be allowed) Dagetrc. Com- 
missioners of Alms House ex rel. Hceffele, 
2 How. Pr. 256. 

Bradshaw v. Callaghan, 5 Johns. 80. Rev'd 
in 8 Id. 558. 

. v. Heath, 13 Wend. 407. See Jackson 

v. Jackson. Discussed (Validity of foreign 
divorce) and cases cited, in 3 Am. L. Beg. 
N. S. 213. Approved with Vischer o. 
Vischer, 12 Barb. 640; McGiffert v. Mc- 
Giffert, 31 Id. 69; Borden v. Fitch, 15 
Johns. 121, in Prosser v. Warner, 47 Vt. 
667; s. c, 19 Am. B. 132, 135. Cited ap- 
provingly with many other authorities 
(Effect of foreign judgment) in 1 Kent Com. 
261, n. b. 

y. Bogers, 20 Johns. 103. Rev'd in Id. 

735 

Bradstreet v. Clarke, 12 Wend. 602; s. c, 

12 N. Y. Com. L. Law: ed. 245, with brief 
note. Approved and followed (Effect of 
subsequently accruing disabilities on run- 
ning of statute of limitations) in McDonald v. 
Ilovey, 110 U. S. {Davis) 619. Collated 
(Application of doctrine of estoppel to mar^ 
ried woman) with Lindner v. Sable, 51 
Barb. 322 ; Bodine v. Killeen, 53 N. Y. 93, 
in 28 Am. B. 374, n. 

v. Ferguson, 17 Wend. 181. Aff'din23 

Wend. 638. Decision in 23 Wend, explained 
as not authority in People v. Weston, 4 
Park. Or. 226, 229, as to pleading ground 
for warrant, but only as to evidence of it. 

v. Supervisors of Oneida, IS Wend. 546. 

Quoted and collated (Action by alien in 
defense of realty) with other cases, in 
Sharsw. & B. Oases on Beal Prop. 502. 

Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 93. See Slee v. 
Bloom. Disting'd (What constitutes disso- 
lution of corporation) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 
N. Y. 379, 386, 389. Discussed in Mora- 
wetz on Corp. § 638. 

v. Brooks. See Jackson ex dem. Bradt 

«. Brooks. 

v. Koon, 4 Cow. 416. Better reported, 

as to the facts, in People v. N. Y. Com. PI., 

13 Wend. 653, by Ch. J. Savage. 



94 



J3KADT— UKAllK 



T. Towslcy, 13 Wend. 253. Overruled 

with Fuller v. Fenner, 16 Barb. 333 
(Damages for loss of health and incapacity 
for business) in Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 
JT. Y. 54, 63. 

Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 Johns. Ch. 206. Rev'd 
(Right of alien enemy to take personal 
property of alien resident) in 13 Johns. 1, 
t>y the casting vote of the lieutenant- 
governor; all the law members of the court 
being, however, for affirmance. See Bell v. 
Chapman. 

Brady, Matter of, 8 Hun, 437; s. c, 53 Sow. 
Pr. 128. AfPd in 69 JT. Y. 215; s. c, 53 
How. Pr. 128. Decision in 69 JT. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Appeal in proceedings for discharge 
of imprisoned debtor) in Matter of Roberts, 
70 JT. Y. 5. Applied (Debtor's proceedings 
— when just or fair) in Matter of Fowler, 8 
Daly, 548, 557. Disting'd (Truth of state- 
ments in papers annexed to petition for 
discharge) in 8chaeffer v. Soule, 23 Hun, 
586. Followed (Bond given to procure dis- 
charge) fn Russak i>. Sabey, 29 Hun, .491. 
Collated with other cases, in Bishop on 
Assign. § 121. Compare CodeCiv. Pro. § 2208. 

■ Matter «f, 47 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 36. 

Aff'd in 85 JT. Y. 208. Decision in 85 JT. Y. 
followed (Repavement) in Matter of Roberts^ 
25 Hun, 371, 376. 

v. Bissell, 1 Abo. Pr. 76. Followed 

and approved (Reference to complaint to 
supply defects in affidavit for order of arrest) 
in Turner v. Thompson, 2 Abb. Pr. 444. 

v. Brnndage, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 

621. Confirmed in 59 JT. Y. 310. Decision 
in 59 IT. Y. followed (Appealability of order 
for exoneration of bail) in Douglass v. 
Haberstro, 82 IT. Y. 572, 574. See (Rights, 
&c. of sheriff, when liable as bail) Oode Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 595, n. 

v. Durbrow, *2 R D. Smith, 78. Fol- 
lowed (Right of defendant to extra allow- 
ance) in Comm'rs of Pilots v. Spoflord, 3 
Hun, 69. 

v. Kibbe. See People v. Abbot. 

v. McCosker, 1 Barb. 329. Affd in 1 

JT. Y. 214. For points of counsel in Ct. 
of App. see How. App. Cos. 480. 

v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 1 Barb. 

591. Limited (Effect of resolution of com- 
mon council, as promise to pay) in Brady v. 
Mayor of N. Y., 2 Bosw 1 . 173, 181. See also 
{Functus officio) Bigler v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 5 Abb. JT. 0.51. 52, n. Compare 
(Municipal corporation as public agent) Sage 
v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Abb. JT. C. 279. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Bosw. 173; 

s.c, 7 Abb. Pr. 234; 16 How. Pr. 435. 
AfPd in 20 JT. Y. 812. Decision in 2 Bosw. 
followed (Liability of municipal corporation 
under void contract) in McSpedon v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y, 20 How. Pr. 395 ; Fanners' 
Loan & Trust Co. v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
4 Bosw. 80, 88; Donovan v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 33 JT. Y. 291. Disting'd in Bonesteel 
v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 6 Id. 550, 565, 
which was afTd in 22 JT. Y. \ 62, which see. 
Commented on and doubted in Harlem Gas 



Light Co. v. Mayor, S-c. of N. Y, 3 Rnbt. 
127. Decision in 20 JT. Y. applied in Mj- 
Closkey v. City of Albany, 7 Hun. 473. 
Collated, with other cases, in 5 Abb. IT. 0. 49, 
n. Applied in Smith ». City of Rochester, 
1 Sheld. 498. Explained in Hecker v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 28 How. Pr. 214. 
Recognized in Parr v. Village of Green- 
burgh, 72 JT. Y. 472. Considered in Moore 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 JT. Y. 248; s. c , 
29 Am. R. 134. which rev'd 4 Hun, 548, 
which see. Decision in 2 Bosw. disting'd 
(Ratifying act of agent of corporation) in 
Rider v. Union India Rubber Co., 5 Bosn. 
98. Decision in 20 JT. Y. followed (Con- 
tracts for municipal work) in Brown v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hun, 31, which was, 
however, rev'd in 63 JT. Y. 239, which see. 
Disting'd in Matter of Merriam, 84 JT. Y. 
596, 604; People *. Van Nort, 64 Barb. 
209. Cited as authority in Matter of Mahan, 
20 Hun, 301. Followed with McSpedon n. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Bonesteel v. Same, 
(Duty of corporation of N. Y. to lease public 
property by auction) in Taylor v. Beebe, 

3 Robt. 262. Decision in 2 Bosw. disting'd 
(Liability of municipal corporation on void 
contract) in Jones v. Mayor, &c. of New 
York, 7 Robt. 209. 

v. Supervisors of N. Y-, 2 Sand/. 460. 

AfPd in 10 JT. Y. 260, but without opinion. 
Decision in 2 Sand/, cited as authority 
(Power of county officers to incur expenses 
in legal proceedings), with People n. Super- 
visors, 32 JT. Y. 473 ; Gillespie v. Broas, 23 
Barb. 379, in Thacher v. Comin'rs, 13 Kans. 
182. Applied (Effect of allowance by super- 
visors) in Brennan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
8 Daly, 426, 429. 

v. Weeks, 3 Barb. 157. Followed 

, (Nuisance) in Heeg n. Licht, 8 Abb. JT. G. 
355, 360. Reviewed, with other cases, in 
Hutchins v. Smith, 63 Barb. 255. Quoted 
in Wood on JTuis. 2 ed. § 2 ; Id. § 76. Quoted 
and discussed in Id. § 573. Included in 
LatosoTk Lead. Gas. in Eq. Simplified, 159. 
Applied (Joinder of plaintiffs in action to be 
relieved from nuisance) in Foot «. Bronson, 

4 Lans. 52. 

Bragne v. Lord, 41 Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 193. 
Rev'd in 67 JT. Y. 495 ; s. c, 2 Abb. JT. C. 1. 
Decision in 67 JT. Y. disting'd (Personal 
communications with deceased) in Gorhain 
v. Price, 25 Hun, 11, 13. Applied in Trow 

. v. Shannon, 8 Daly, 239, 242, but objection 
there cured by putting in evidence examina- 
tion taken before trial. Applied in Head v. 
Teeter, 10 Hun, 550; Burnett v. Noble, 5 
Red/. 69, 77. Reviewed with other cases, 
in Kale o. Elliott, 18 Hun, 199. Followed in 
Ross v. Harden, 42 Super. Ct. [J. & S.) 427; 
Freeman v. Lawrence, 43 Id. 290. 

Brahc v. Pythagoras Assoc, 4 liner, 658. 
See Kattenstroth v. Astor Bank. Overruled 
(Jurisdiction of N. Y. Superior Court in 
actions for dissolution of corporations) in 
Van Pelt v. U. S. Shoe-heel Co., 35 Super. 
Ct (J. & S.) Ill ; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 
325, 332, 



ERAINARD— BRANDT. 



95 



BrainardT. Cooper, 10 iK Y. 356. Disting'd 
(Right to redeem from foreclosure sale) in 
Iielden v. Slade, 26 Hun, 635. Criticised in 
dissenting opinion in Gage v. Brewster, 21 
If. Y. 218, as decided by a divided court. 

• t Jones, 18 If. Y. 35. Prior proceeding 

in 11 How. Pr. 569. See Crandall v. Bryan; 
Lyon i>. Clark; Smedes v. Houghtaling. 
Disting'd (Limit of liability on a bond) in 
Beers v. Shannon, 73 N. Y. 292, 303. Con- 
trasted with the Massachusetts rule, in Clark 
v. Wilkinson (Wise. Jan. 19, 1884), 18 
Northw. Rep. 481, 485. Followed (Liabil- 
ity for interest) in Gutta Percha, &c. M'f'g 
Co. v. Benedict, 37 Super. Gt. (J. &S.)im. 

1 Decision in 11 How. Pr. disting'd (Manner 
of taking objection to complaint for non- 
joinder of party) in Eaton v. Balcom, 33 Id. 
SO. See Quigley v. Walker, 2 Sweeny, 175. 

v. Spring-, 42 Barb. 470. Reviewed. 

with other cases (Representations, when 
fraudulent) in Brown «. Ashbough, 40 
How. Pr. 226, 238. 

Brainerd v. Dunning, 30 If. Y. 211. Dis- 
ting'd (Presumption as to findings of fact, 
in aid of judgment) in Meyer v. Amidon, 
45 N. Y. 173. 

v. Heydriek. See Barnard v. Hcydrick. 

v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 25 If. Y. 

496. Followed (Validity of bond issued 
payable in blank) with Hubbard •». N. Y. & 
Harlem R. R. Co., 36 Barb. 286; Dutchess 
County Ins. Co. v. Hachfield, 4 Supm. Gt. 
\r. & G.) 158, in Boyd a Kennedy, 9 Vroom 
(N. J.) 146; s. c. 20 Am. R. 376, 379. 

Bramhall y. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41. Followed 
(Conditional trusts) in Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 
6 Hun, 31, 40. Quoted (Spendthrift trusts) 
in Wait on Fraud. Gown. § 366. Cases 
collected (Valid conditional determination 
of life estate) in 9 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 522. 

Branch v. Harrington, 49 How. Pr. 19*6. 
See to the contrary (Right of receiver in 
supplementary proceedings to employ at- 
torney of judgment creditor) Baker v. Van 
Epps, 60 Id. 79. 

v. Levy, 44 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 507. 

Further decision in 46 Id. 428. 

v. Roberts, 50 Barb. 435. Said not to 

be good law (Who may sue directors for 
misconduct) in Thomps. Liab. of Off., &c. of 
Corp. 400, but approved as in accord with 
other cases (Creditors' remedies) in 53 Am. 
Dee. 650. n. 

Brand v. Brand, 49 Barb. 346; s. c, 83 
How. Pr. 167. Rev'd or overruled in 48 
If. Y. 675; but no opinion. 

v. Focht, 8 Robt: 426; s. c, 30 How. 

Pr. 313. Affd in 3 Keyes, 409; s. c, more 
fully, in 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 225. Decision in 
3 Keyes followed (Acceptance and delivery) 
in Brewster v. Taylor, 39 Super. Gt. (J. &S.) 
159, 166. 

v. Schenectady & Troy R. R. Co.. 8 

Barb. 368. Overruled (Liability of passenger 
carrier) in Johnson v. Hudson River 11. R. 
Co., 6 Duer, 633. Followed with Weed v. 
■ Panama R.R.Co., 17 If. Y. 362, andnumerous 
other cases in Goddard «. Grand Trunk 



R'way, 57 Me. 202; s. c, 2 Am. R. 39, 42, 
with note. Applied (Liability to others than 
passengers) in New Orleans, Jackson & Great 
Northern R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 48 Miss. 112 ; 
s. c, 12 Am. R. 356, 364. Collated and 
applied with Nolton ». Western R. R. Co., 
15 If. Y. 444, and other cases, in Higlev e. 
Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90 ; s. c, 35 Am. R. 450, 
with note. 

Bninder v. Howard, 14 Hun, 420. Affd in 
75, N. Y. 417. 

Brandon v. Avery, 22 IT. Y. 469. Commented 
on, and disting'd (Validity of act creating 
justices of the peace) in Waters v. Lang- 
don, 40 Barb. 408 ; Dawson v. Horan, 51 
Id. 459. Explained in Geraty ». Reid, 78 
If. Y. 64, 66. Followed in People ex rel. 
Creegau v. Dutcher, 2 Hun, 156. Cited aa 
authority (Distinction between police justice 
and justice of the peace) in People v. Mor- 
gan, 5 Daly, 151, 180. 

v. Brandon, iSup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 385; 

s. c, 50 How. Pr. 328. Rev'd in effect as 
Brandow v. Brandow, 66 If. Y. 401. 

v. , People, 42 If. Y. 265. Followed 

(Waiver of privilege by accused person testi- 
fying in his own behalf) in Connors v. 
People, 50 If. Y. 240. Disting'd in People 
v. Brown, 72 If. Y. 571, 574, which affd 
8 Hun, 562, 564, which see. Disting'd in 
People i). Crapo, 76 If. Y. 291. Followed and 
approved with Connors v. People, 50 Id. 240 ; 
Fralich v. People, 65 Barb. 48; McGarry v. 
People, 2 Bans. 227, in State e. Clinton, 67 
Mo. 380; s. c, 29 Am. R. 506, 508. Fol- 
lowed, and People v. Crapo, 76 If. Y. 288 
disting'd, in Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 
178; s. c, 41 Am. R. 496. Collated with 
Connors v. People, 50 If. Y. 204; People v. 
Casey, 72 Id. 393 ; People v. Brown, Id. 571, 
and other cases, in 27 Am. R. 140, n. See 
19 Alb. L. J. 388, 428." 

Brandow v. Brandow. See Brandon v. 
Brandon. 

Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige, 24. Followed 
(Restraining publication of libel) in N. Y. 
Juv. Guard. Soc'y v. Roosevelt, 7 Daly, 
188. 

Brandt v. Klein, 17 Johns. 335 ; s. c, N. Y. 
Com. L. Law. ed. 386, with brief note on 
attorney's privilege. 

y. Ogden, 3 Gdi. 6. Subsequent decis- 
ion in 1 Johns. 156 ; s. c, 3 N. Y. Com. L. 
Law. ed. 94, with brief note, of cases on 
adverse possession. Relied upon (What 
constitutes adverse possession) in Gay v. 
Mofflt, 2 Bibb (E~y.) 506; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 
633. Followed with Jackson v. Bard, 4 
Johns. 230; Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 162; 
in French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439; 8. c, 
l\-Am. Dec. 680. Applied with Doe v. Butler, 
3 Wend. 149, in Arnold v. Stevens, 24 Pich. 
{Mass.) 106; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 305, 308. 
Cited as authority with Doe ». Campbell, 10 
Johns. 475 ; Jackson v. Leonard, 9 Cow. 
653 (Possession by successive disseizors), in 
Melvin v. Proprietors, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 15 ; 
s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 384. Followed (Effect 
of describing line in grant as running toward 



96 



BRANDTNER— EREESE. 



one of cardinal points) in Hagan v. Camp- 
bell, 8 Port. {Ala.) 9; s. c, 83 Am. Dee. 
267, 274. 

Brandtner v. Marshall, 1 Cai. 394. Quoted 
and explained (Statute of limitations — land- 
lord and tenant) in Aug. on Limit. § 442, 
6 ed. 

Brant v. Dyckman, 1 Johns. Cos. 275. Ap- 
plied (Evidence as to defendant in eject- 
ment not being in possession) in Jackson v. 
Trusdell, 12 Johns. 247. 

v. Fowler, 7 Cow. 562. See People v. 

Douglass. Overruled (Setting aside verdict 
for drinking of intoxicating liquors by jury) 
in Wilson v. Abrahams, 1 Mill, 207. Fol- 
lowed- with People v. Douglass, 4 Cow. 26, 
notwithstanding Wilson v. Abrahams (which 
is said to also overrule Bullard v. Spore, 2 
Cow. 430 ; Eose «. Smith, 4 Id. 17), in Ryan 
v. Harrow, 27 Iowa, 494; s. c, 1 Am. R. 
302, 303, 306, with note, wherein Dcnnison 
•d. Collins is said to accord with Wilson e. 
Abrahams. Disapproved in State v. Bruce, 
48 Iowa, 530; s. c, 30 Am. R. 406. 

T. Wilson, 8 Cow. 56. Approved as to 

construction of codicil in another decision 
on the same will, in Wilson v. Wilson, 32 
Barb. 328; s. c, 20 Sow. Pr. 41. 

Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Gh. 242, 
400. Explained (Joinder of lunatic with com- 
mittee as party) in Gorham v. GoVham, 3 
Barb. Ch. 24, 38. Followed (Compelling 
compliance by purchaser at judicial sale) in 
Warfleld v. Dorsey, 36 Md. 299; s. c, 17 
Am. R. 562, 565; Simonds v. Catlin, 2 
Cai. 61, being disting'd (Application of 
statute of frauds) as a case of a sheriffs 
sale. 

Brandlacht, Ex parte, 2 Hill, 367. Quoted 
and explained (Prohibition, writ of — when 
to be resorted to) in High on Extr. Rem. 
2 ed. § 770. n. 1. 

Branneck t. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 
1 Abb. K C. 393. Followed with Landers v. 
Staten Island 11. R. Co., 53 K 7. 450, (Juris- 
diction of City Court of Brooklyn) in 
Davidsburgh v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. (Jo., 
90 N. 7. 526. Compare Wheelock v. Lee, 
5 Abb. N. C. 72, 74, n. 

Bray y. Farwell, 3 Lans. 495. Compare 
(Voluntary associations) Ebbinghausen v. 
Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. C. 300. 

Braynard t. Hoppock, 7 Bosw. 157. Aff'd in 
32 N~. 7. 571. 

Brazil! v. Isham, 1 E D. Smith, 437. Aff d 
in 12 K 7. 9. Decision in 12 JV. 7. followed 
(Defense not set up in answer, not available) 
in Robbins v. Richardson, 2 Bosw. 256 ; Lob- 
dell «. Stowell, 37 How. Pr. 90; O'Toolc v. 
Garvin, 1 Hun, 95. Applied to plaintiffs 
pleadings in Williams v. Birch, 6 Bosw: 307, 
678. 

Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 4 
Hill, 73. Affd in 8 IF. 7. 299 ; s. c, 59 
Am. Dec. 482, with extended note respecting 
the effect of the suicide of an insured person 
upon his right to recover on the policy, Van 
Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 55 
iV. Y. 169; De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker L. 



Ins. Co., 65 N. 7. 235, and many other cases 
being reviewed and criticised in such note, 
wherein it is stated that the doctrine of 
Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 
though now the prevailing one in this 
country, seems to be denied or at least 
modified by later N. Y. cases. Bee Gates 
v. Madison County Mut. Ins. Co.; Livingston 
v. Stickles. Both decisions disting'd in 
Fowler o. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Lans. 202; 
Van Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co.. 

55 K 7. 169, 173. Contrary held in Dean 
v. American Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Allen, 
(Mass.) 106. Decision in 8 IF. 7. disap- 
proved in Cooper v. Mass. Ins. Co., 102 Mass. 
229; s. c.,3Am.R. 453. Decision in 4 Hill, 
followed and approved in Phadenhauer v. 
Germania Life Ins. Co., 7 Heish. (Tenn.) 
567 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 623, 626. Decis- 
ion in 8 N". 7. followed with approval in 
Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Groom, 

56 Penn. St. 92; s. c, 27 Am. R. 689, 692. 
Though cited in Life Ins. Co. v. Terry, 15 
Wall. 580, as in opposition to the rule laid 
down in Borradaile v. Hunter, 5 Man. & Or. 
639, yet said in Adkins v. Columbia Life Ins. 
Co., 70 Mo. 27; s. c, 35 Am. R. 410, to have 
been satisfactorily reconciled in Van Zandt 
v. Mut. B. Life Ins. Co., 55 IF. 7. 169, 
the rule in De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker 
Life Ins. Co., 56 N. 7. 235, being approved 
and other cases collated. Decision in 4 
Hill, followed in Bigelow v. Berkshire 
Life Ins. Co., 93 U. S. 284; s. c, 19 Am. R. 
628, n. Approved, and the doctrine of Van 
Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. ; De 
Gogorza v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. ap- 
parently negatived in Manhattan Life Ins. 
Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121. Collated 
with.other cases,, in 3 Am. R. 454, n., where 
it is said to be the first case in the country, 
where the question arose as to whether 
such provisions in life policies as that they 
shall be void, in case the assured shall die 
by his own hand, include self-destruction 
under the influence of insanity. Reviewed 
with other cases, in 4 Alb. L. J. 53. 

Breck v. Cole, 4 Sandf. 79, 84. Applied 
(Compromise agreement, when void) in Cran- 
dall v. Cochran, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & V.) 
203, 206. Disting'd with Lawrence v. Clark, 
36 JV. 7. 128 ; Penniman v. Elliott, 27 
Barb. 315, being followed in Hadley Falls 
Nat, B'k v. May, 29 Hun, 404. Approved 
in Huntington v. Clark, 39 Conn. 556'; 
Bean v. Amsinck, 10 Blatchf. C. Ct. 361, 
370. 

v. Smith. See Forrest v. Forrest. 

Breed v. Cook, 15 Johns. 241. Explained 
(Presumption of payment, arising upon sale 
of goods, by vendor's taking from purchaser 
note of third person) in Darnall v. More- 
house, 36 How. Pr. 511. 

Breese v. Bange, 2 E. I). Smith, ilk 
Disting'd and reviewed (Proof of demand 
and refusal as sufficient evidence of con- 
version) in Ray v. Light, 34 Ark 430. 

v. IT. S. Telegraph Co.. 45 Barb. 274;- 

s. c, 31 How. Pr. 86. Afl'd in 48 IF. Y. 



BEEHM— BREWER. 



97 



132. See Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co. ; De 
Rutte «. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co. ; 
Young v. Western Union Tel. Co. Decision 
in 45 Barb, disting'd (Limitation of carrier's 
liability) in Sunderland" v. Westcott, 2 
Sweeny, 260. Applied in Falkenau v. 
Fargo, 85 Super. Ct. (J.SS.) 337. DistingM 
(Liability of telegraph company for error in 
transmitting message) in Baldwin v. U. S. 
Tel. Co., 1 Bans. 136; Bartlett v. Western 
Union Telegraph Co., 62 Me. 209; s. c, 16 
Am. R. 437, 442. Reviewed, with other 
cases, in Sweetland v. 111. & Tenn. Tel. Co., 
27 Iowa, 433; s. c, 1 Am. R. 285, 289, 
294. Decision in 48 N~. Y. followed in 
Young v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 
Super. Ot. (J. & S.) 395. Applied in Red- 
path v. Western Union Tel. Co., 112 Mass. 
71 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 69, 71. Followed in 
GrinneU v. Western Union Tel. Co., 113 
Mass. 299; s. c, 18 Am. ft. 485, where Leon- 
ard v. N. Y., Albany, &c. Tel. Co., 41 JV. 
Y. 544; s. c, 1 Am. R. 440, was disting'd. 
Collated with Rittenhouse v. Independent 
Line of Telegraph, 44 N~. Y. 263 ; s. c, 4 
Am. R. 673, and other cases, in 24 Am. R. 
283, n. Followed in Becker v. Western 
Union Tel. Co., 11 Neb. 87; s. c, 38 Am. 
R. 356. Quoted in 2 Pars, on Oontr. 
257, i, n. nn; Id. 257, j. n. p. Disting'd 
(Duties of telegraph companies) in Friedman 
v. Gold Stock Tel. Co., 32 Hun, 4. Fol- 
lowed (Limitation of carrier's liability) in 
Huntington?;. Dinsmore, 6 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & 
0.) 195. 

Brehm v. Great Western Ry. Co., 34 Barb. 
256. See Chapman v. New Haven R. R. 
Co. Followed (Proximate and discoverable 
negligence as a cause) in Harvey v. N. Y. 
Central, Sec. R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 556, 500. 
Followed and approved (Burden of proof 
resting on railroad company, in case of in- 
juries resulting from defects in its roadway) 
in Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. ©. Miller, 2 Gol. T. 
457. 

Bremer v. Penniman. See Brewer*. Brewer. 

Brennan r. Half. See Hatch v. Mann. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y,' 1 Hun, 315 ; s. 

c, more fully, 47 How. Br. 178. Rev'd in 
62 N. Y. 365. Decision in 62 N. Y. ex- 
plained (Who are "officers" of the court) 
in Wines «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 
659. Compared in Moser «. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 21 Hun, 163. Disting'd and 
limited in Rowland v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
83 N Y. 372, 377. Disting'd with Wines 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Hun, 659 (Ap- 
pointment of court attendant) in Mason v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 28 Hun, 115. Dis- 
ting'd (Pay-rolls as evidence, in action 
against city for salary) in Fitch v. Mayor, 
&c. of New York., 88 XT. Y. 500 ; Reilly v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y, 48 Super. Ot. {J. & S.) 
274. 

y. People, 7 Hun, 171. Collated with 

other cases (Proof of general immoral char- 
acter of prosecutrix in rape) in 1 Barb, on 
Grim. L. 3 ed. 74, n. 

L— 7 



t. Security Life Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 296. 

Compare (Effect of statements on applica- 
tion for policy, as warranties) Fitch v. Am. 
Popular Life Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 557. 

v. Willson, 7 Daly, 59. Aff'd in 71 

N. Y. 502; s. c, 4 Abb. N. C. 279. See 
Syracuse, Binghanipton, &c. R. R. Co. v. 
Collins. Decision in 71 N~. Y. followed un- 
willingly (Invalidity of conveyance by as- 
signee made before he has filed bond) in 
Woodworth v. Seymour, 22 Hun, 247. Dis- 
ting'd (Provisions of assignment act, when 
directory) in Rennie a. Bean, 24 Hun, 123, 
127. 

Brereton v. Hull, 1 Den. 75. See Haxtunc. 
Corse. Approved (Preferences as ground of 
fonpeacliing discharge in bankruptcy) in 
Caryl v. Russell, 13 N. Y. 194. 

Brett v. Brown, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 295. Dis- 
ting'd (Exemption of witness from service 
of process) in Frisbie ». Young, 11 Hun, 
474. See to the contrary. Pollard v. Union 
Pacific II. R. Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 70. Col- 
lated with conflicting cases (Defects in pro- 
cess) in Sweeney v. Schnltes, 6 Pad. Rep. 
44. Compare (Special appearance) Malcolm 
v. Marshall, 29 Ohio St. 611. 

v Buck nam, 32 Barb. 655. Commented 

upon and questioned (Applications to com- 
pel production of. books and documents on 
examination of party before trial) in Hause- 
•man v. Sterling, G I Barb. 347. 

v. First Bui v. Soc. of Brooklyn, 5 

Hun, 149. Aff'd, it seems, in 64 N~. Y- 
651, but without opinion. Former decision 
in 63 Barb. 610. Decision in 63 Barb, dis- 
ting'd (Objection by defendant to defect of 
parties) in Chapman v. Douglas,- 5 Daly, 
244, 248; s. c, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 421. 
Pronounced incorrect in Pomeroy on Rem. 
§ 676, n. 1. 

Bretz v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Abb. Pr. N. 
S. 478. Rev'd (Public statutes) in 6 Robt. 
325; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 258; 35 How. 
Pr. 130. Decision in 6 Robt. cited in 1 
Whart. Com. on Ev. § 293. Explained 
(Judicial notice) in 1 Best on Ev. § 33, n. a, 
Wood's ed. 

Brevoort v. Brevoort, 70 N. Y. 136. Dis- 
ting'd (Interest enabling one to maintain 
action for partition) in Harris v. Larkins, 
22 Him, 490. Followed (Rights of persons 
not in being) in Monarque v. Monarquc, 8 
Abb. N. O. 102, 117. Compare Code Oh. 
Pr; § 1557. See also Id. (1'hroop's ed.) ch. 
XIV. tit. I. art. 2, n. 

v. Grace. 53 N. Y. 245. Compare (Sale 

of contingent interests) Code Oiv. Pro. § 
1557. 

v. McJimsey, 1 Edw. 551. See (Effect 

of foreclosure proceedings on proceedings 
for sale of decedent's real estate) Oode Civ. 
Pro. 1881, §2797, n. 

v. Warner, 8 How. Pr. 321. Approved 

(Proceedings for discovery of books, &c.) 
in Commercial Bank of Albany v. Dunham. 
13 How. Pr. 542. 

Brewer v. Brewer, 11 Hun, 147. Aff'd, it 



98 



BREWER— BEEWSTER. 



seems, as Bremer v. Penniman, 72 AT. Y. 
603. but without opinion. Decision in 11 
Hun, followed (Validity of trust suspending 
power of alienation) in Hobsou v. Hale, 95 
Jf. Y. 588. 

y. Isish, 12 How. Pr. 481. Said in 

head-note to Tremain v. Rider, 13 How. Pr. 
149, to agree substantially with that case as 
to the mode of making up case and excep- 
tions upon trial before court or referee, but 
referred to in Ferguson v. Hamilton, 35 
Barb. 433, as overruled respecting the neces- 
sity of a case in order ^o have reviewed a, 
judgment entered on the report of a referee. 
See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 992, n. 

v. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 511. Followed 

(Passing of title to personal property) in 
Hubbard v. O'Brien, 8 Hun, 245. Opposed 
in Halterline v. Rice, 62 Barb. 593, 600. 
Bisting'd with Woodford v. Patterson. 32 
Id. 630 (Sufficiency of delivery under con- 
tract of sale) in Hamburger v. Rodman, 9 
Daly, 93. 

y. Temple, 15 How. Pr. 286. Opposed 

(Joinder of causes of action) in Anderson v. 
Hill, 53 Barb. 238. Doctrine re-asserted, 
in Sheldon v. Lake, 9 Abb. Pr. if. S. 306. 
Disapproved in Perrotean v. Johnson, 4 
Month. L. Bui. 25. Referred to in Pomeroy 
on Rem. § 466, n. 2, as overruled by An- 
derson v. Hill. 

Brewers', &c. Ins. Co. y. Davenport, ft 
Hun, 264. See also (Jurisdiction of State 
courts in actions by assignees in bank- 
ruptcy) Wheelock v. Lea, 5 Abb. if. C. 
72. 

Brewster y; Baker, 16 Barb. 613. Recon- 
sidered and disapproved as to contract in 
question being a mortgage, in subsequent 
decision, in 20 Barb. 364. Followed (^Estop- 
pel created by not objecting to sale) in 
Garnar ». Bird, 57 Barb. 277, 289. 

v. Bostwick, 6 Cow. 34, 37. Relied on 

(Matter in answer to be stricken out as 
sham) in Fellows v. Muller, 38 Super. Ct. 
(/. <S> S.) 137. 

t. City of Syracuse, 19 JV. F. 116. See 

People ex rel. Griffing v. Mayor, &c. of 
Brooklyn; Town of Guilford ■». Supervisors 
of Chenango. Disting'd (Expenses covered 
by statute authorizingassessment) in Matter 
of Metropolitan Gas Co., 23 Hun, 329. Fol- 
lowed (Expression of subject in title of 
local bill) in People ex rel. N. Y. & Harlem 
R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 378; Peoples. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 186, 
which was affd in 41 N. Y. 139, which see. 
Applied in Mann v. City of Utica, 44 Haw. 
Pr. 340; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; 
Freeman v. Panama R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 124; 
Kerrigan v. Force, 9 Hun. 190; Devlin v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 K Y. 22 ; People 
ex rel. Comm'rs v. Banks, 67 K Y. 573. 
Disting'd in People v. Allen, 42 K Y. 418. 
Explained in People v. Supervisors of Chau- 
tauqua, 43 AT. Y. 19. Followed (Legitimate 
exorcise of taxing power) in People v. Law- 
rence, 36 Barb. 194. Disting'd by Peck- 



ham, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
2 Keyes, 399. Approved and applied in Dar- 
lington v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y., 31 N. Y. 190. 
Explained (Additional compensation to con- 
tractor for municipal work) in Meech v. City 
of Buftalo,292v".r.212. Followed and approv- 
ed in Howell v. City of Buffalo, 37 K Y. 272. 
Applied in Davidson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
2 Uubt. 246. Collated with other cases 
(Taxation in aid of local interests) in 10 Am. 
L. Reg. A 7 ". S. 161. Commented on ("Law 
of the land ") in Cooley on Const. Limita. 5 
ed. 470, n. 

v. Countryman, 12 Wend. 446; s. c, 12 

N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 189, with brief 
note. See Doty ». Brown. Reviewed 
(Admissibility of copies as secondary evi- 
dence) in Lyon v. Boiling, 14 Ala. 753; 
s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 122, 125, with note. 

v. Doane, 2 Hill, 537. S.ee Bank 

of Monroe v. Culver; Merrill v. Ithaca & 
OwegoR. R. Co. Disting'd (Entries, &c. in 
evidence) in Derham v. Lee, 47 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 174, 183. Rule in different States 
stated (Effect of absence of witness from 
State) in 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 469. Cited 
in 1 Wliart. Com. on Ev. § 240, as contrary 
to rule therein laid down. 

V. Hall, 6 Cow. 34. Explained (Striking 

out false defense as sham) in McCarty u. 
O'Donnell, 7 Eobt. 634. 

v. Houigsburger, 2 Code Rep. 50. 

Explained as not authority (Attaching part- 
nership credits and balances), in Barry v. 
Fisher, 8 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 369, 379; citing 
Sears v. Gearn, 7 How. Pr. 303. 

v. McCarclel, 8 Wend. 479. Included 

(Indorsee of post-dated negotiable paper) in 
Red/. &, B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exeh. 225. 
— v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 5 How. 
Pr. 183. See Hulbert v. Hope Mut. Ins. 
Co. Disapproved (Nature of actions against 
foreign corporations) in Cumberland Coal 
&'Iron Co. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co , 30 
Barb. 159, 103. 

v. Power, 10 Paige, 562. Explained 

(Enforcing remedy against trust property) 
in Ocean National Bank v. Olcott, 46 N. Y. 
12, 20. Disapproved in Wait «. Day, 4 
Den. 439, which was, however, overruled, 
and Brewster v. Power approved, in Garfield 
v. Hatmakcr, 15 A 7 ". Y. 475. 

v. Silence, 11 Barb. 144. Affd in 8 

N. Y. 207. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh; 
Watson v. McLaren. Decision iu 8 N. Y. 
disapproved (Joinder of persons liable on 
same obligation, in one action) in Decker 
v. Gaylord, 8 Hun, 110. Disting'd (Con- 
sideration to support guaranty) in Church 
v. Brown, 21 A 7 . Y. 321, 336, which rev'd 
29 Barb. 486, which see. Explained and 
approved on a similar point in Draper v. 
Snow, 20 N. Y. 337, 342, which affd 6 Duer, 
662, which see. Examined, with other 
cases, in Speycrs v. Lambert, 6 Abb. Pr. 
K S. 317. Applied by Cj.erke, J., in 
Moore v. Cross, 23 Barb. 545. Explained in 
Prime v. Koehler, 7 Daly, 34-5, 352. Fol- 



BREWSTER— BRIDGE. 



99 



lowed in Wilson v. Roberts, 5 Bmw. 100, 
107; Glen Cove Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrold, 20 
Barb. 301 ; Wood v. Wheelook, 25 Id. 
623; Gould v. Moring, 28 Id. 446. Dis- 
ting'd in Grant v. Hotchkiss, 26 Id. 63; 
Dauber v. Blackney, 38 Id. 436. Applied 
in Hahn v. Hull, 4 E. D. Smith, 673. Dis- 
ting'd (Promise, when to pay one's own 
debt) in Ellenwood ». Fults, 63 Barb. 334. 
Followed as settled law, notwithstanding 
doubts created by later cases, — in Lossee u. 
Williams, 6 Bans. 234. Approved in dis- 
senting opinion of Bacon, J., in Mallory v. 
Gillett, 21 JT. Y. 447. Approved (.Con- 
struction of statute of frauds) in dissenting 
opinion in Mead v. Case, 33 Barb. 202, 213. 

V. Silliman, 38 N. Y. 423. Criticised 

(Rule of damages in replevin) in Allen v. 
Fox, 57 jV. Y. 562, 507. See Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 1722, n. 

■ v. Striker, 1 E. D. Smith, 321; s. c., 7 

XT. Y. Beg. Obs. 140. AS" d in 2 M. Y. 19. 
Further decisions on will here involved are 
in Striker v. Mott, 28 K Y. 82 ; Smith v. 
Scholtz, 63 N. Y. 41 ; Union Nat. Bk. v. 
Kuffer, 2 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 059. Decis- 
ion in 2 H. Y. distijig'd (Estate, when vested 
in executor, &c.) in Tuckers). Tucker, 5 N. Y. 
408. Followed in Tobias v. Ketchum, 32 N~. 
Y. 331. Disting'd in Favill v. Roberts, 50 N. 
Y. 222, which aft'd 3 Lans. 24, which see. 
Applied in Morse v. Morse, 85 Jf. Y. 53, 60. 
Disting'd in Onondaga Trust, &c. Co. v. 
Paul, 87 iV. Y. 542. Applied in Mead v. 
Mitchell, 5 Abb. Pr. 106; Wagstaff «. 
Lowerre, 23 Barb. 220; Dominicks. Michael, 
4 Sandf. 403. Applied to personal property 
in Bean v. Bowen, 47 How. Pr. 327. 
Doubted in Leggett v. Hunter, 25 Barb. 98, 
which was afPd in 19 N. Y. 454, which see. 
Disting'd in Catton v. Taylor, 42 Barb. 581; 
Post -c. Hover, 33 K Y. 600; Robert v. 
Corning, 23 Hun, 299, 303. Approved 
(Effect of vesting legal title in executors, 
&c.) in Blakely v. Calder, 15 xV. Y. 617. 
Disting'd (Sale of equitable, &c. interests on 
execution) in Sheridan v. House, 4 Keycs, 
569, 589. Disting'd (Estoppel of one 
acquiescing in transfer of property) in Tilton 
v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595. Applied (Estop- 
pel) in Gailor «. flerriek, 42 Barb. 87. 

v. Taylor, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 150. 

Aft'd in 63 K Y. 587. Decision in 63 K 
Y. disting'd (Acceptance under statute of 
frauds) in U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rushton, 7 
Daly, 410, 416. 

Brick's Estate, Matter of, 15 Abb. Pr. 12. 
See Whitaker, Matter of. Approved 
(Surrogate's jurisdiction) in Russell v. 
Hartt, 87 K Y. 19, 24; Wright's Account- 
ing, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S: 440. Followed in 
Curran -v. Sears, 2 Red/. 526, 529, which 
was affd in 13 Ban, 458, 463, which see. 
Cited, with approval (Ecclesiastical law of 
England no part of the law of this State) in 
Hartnett v. Wandell, 2 Hun, 552. Applied 
(Power to open decree.) in Bailey v. Stewart, 
2 Red/. 226 ; Dobko b. McClarau, 41 Barb. 



493. Approved in Dobke v. Munro, 1 Bed/. 
487 ; Strong v. Strong, 3 Id. 484. Compare 
Code Civ. Pro. § 2481, subd. 6. See (Ap- 
pointment of guardian) Code Civ. Pro. % 
2821. Opposed (Termination of guardian- 
ship by marriage) iu Matter of Herbeck, 16 
Abb. Pr. N. S. 216. Cited in 29 Am. Bee. 
716, n., as supporting the better opinion. 

Brick v. Brick, 3 Hun, 617. Affd in 66 
K Y. 144. Decision in 66 N. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Proof of undue influence) in La 
Bau v. Vanderbilt, 3 lied/.' 404. Relied on 
in Snyder u, Sherman, 23 Hun, 139. 

Brick Churcli, Matter of, 3 Edw. 169. Dis- 
ting'd (Rights of vendee of burial lot) in 
People e.t rel. Coppers ■». Trustees, 21 Hun, 
184, 190. Collated with Richards v. North- 
west Protestant Dutch Church, 32 Barb. 
42; Buffalo City Cemetery?). City of Buffalo, 
46 & Y. 503 ; Windt v. German Reformed 
Church, 4 Sand/. Ch. 471, and other cases 
(Legislative right to authorize removal of 
dead) in dissenting opinion, in Craig v. First 
Pres. Church of Pittsburgh, 88 Penn. St. 
42; s. c, 32 Am. R. 417, included in the 
Reporter's note thereto, p. 424. 

Brickner v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Lam. 
506. Aff'd in 49 N. Y. 672, but without 
opinion. See also Laning ®. N. Y. Central 
R R Co., 49 N. Y. 521; s. c, 10 Am. R. 
417, where it is aft'd in effect. See Flike v. 
Boston & Albany R. R. Co. Explained (Lia- 
bility of railroad company for injury to em- 
ployee) in Tinuey v. Boston & Albany R. R. 
Co., 62ifar4.218. Followed with approval in 
Harper v. Indianapolis, &c. R. R. Co., 47 Mo. 
567 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 353, 363. Referred to 
with approval with Malone v. Hathaway, 
64 N. Y. 512 (Liability of corporation for 
injury to employee) in Chicago, Milw. & St. 
P. R'y Co. v. Ross, 112 U.S. 377,391. 
Applied in Smith v. Oxford Iron Co., 13 
Vroom (N~. J.) 407; s. c, 36 Am. R. 535, 
539. 

Bridenbccker t. Lowell, 32 Barb. 9. Dis- 
'.ing'd (Application of payments) in Jones v. 
Benedict, 83 K Y. 80. Applied (Corpora- 
tion, when bound by acts of agent) in 
Chcever v. Gilbert Elev. R. Co., 43 -Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 478, 492. Disting'd (Pre- 
sumption of authority arising from posses- 
sion of notes) iu Wardrop v. Dunlop, 1 Hun, 
325, 329. 

v. Mason, 16 now. Pr. 203. Followed 

(Confession of judgment by one partner or 
joint debtor) in Lambert s. Converse, 22 
How. Pr. 265. 

Bridge v. Mason, 45 Barb. 37. Cited as au- 
thority (Evidence of insolvency of maker or 
indorser of note") in Clark v. Hampton, 1 
Han, 012; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 76. 
Questioned in 2 Sedg. Heas. o/ Bama. 7 
ed. 59, n. 

v. Payson, 5 Sand/. 210. Followed 

(Pleading matter in abatement) in Mayhew 
v. Robinson, 10 How. Pr. 162. See to the 
contrary Van Buskirk v. Roberts, 14 Id. 
01, 63. 



loo 



BEIDGFOKD—URrGGS.: 



Bridgford v" Crocker, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 273. Affd in 60 K Y. 627. Decision 
in 60 N. Y. explained (Sale — action against 
buyer) in 2 Ben), on Sales, § 1121, n. .4 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

Bridgeport Ins. Co: V. Wilson, 7 Bosw. 427. 
Rev'd in 34 If. Y. 275. Further decision in 
7 Bosw. 699; s. c, more fully, 12 Abb. Pr. 
209. Decision in 34 A 7 ". Y. 275, followed 
(Indemnitor, when not bound by judgment 
against principal) in People t>. White, 28 
Hun, 289. Cited as authority in State u. 
Thornton, 8 Mo. App. 31. 

Bridger v. Pierson, 1 Lans. 481. Rev'd 
(Construction of clause in deed reserving 
right of way) in 45 JST. Y. 601. 

Bridges v. Hyatt, 2 Abb. Pr. 449. Aff'd in 
16 A 7 ". Y. 546. 

t. Wyekoff, 67 N. Y. 130. Disting'd 

(Acceptance of street by public) in Corwin, 
v. Corwin, 24 Hun, 148. 

Bridgewater Paint Man uf. Co. v. Messmore, 
15 How. Pr. 12. Disapproved (Right of de- 
fendant to move to vacate order of arrest, 
after judgment and execution issued against 
his person) in Crowell v. Brown, 17 How. 
Pr. 68. 

Briggs v. Bergen, 23 N. Y. 162. Disting'd 
(Appeal to Court of Appeals) in Lahens ». 
Fielden, 15 Abb. Pr. 180. Followed in 
Jones v. Ludlum, 74 A 7 ". Y. 61. Applied to 
case of judgment by default, — in Maltby v. 
Greene, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 146. Followed 
(Appeal from order striking out answer as 
sham) in Potter ■». Carreras, 4 Eobt. 629. 

v. Boyd, 65 Barb. 197. Affd in 56 N. 

Y. 289. See Mooney v. Elder. 

v. Briggs, 20 Barb. 477. Aff'd in 15 

N. Y. 471. See Colgrove v. Tallman ; Schu- 
bert v. Harteau. 

v. Bavis, 20 JST. Y. 15. Modifying 

Briggs v. Palmer, 20 Barb. 392. Docis- 

■ ion in 20 A 7 ". . Y. partially rev'd on rc- 
argument, in 2 L Id. 574. Followed (Effect 
of mortgage executed by one grunting 
estate in trust) in Marvin v. Smith, 06 
Barb. 600. Followed (Rights of purchaser 
from trustee) in GriswOld v. Perry, 7 Lans. 
104. • Followed (Invalidity of sale had in 
contravention of trust) in Russell v. Rus- 
sell, 36 A 7 . Y. 585. Commented on (Assign- 
ment for benefit of creditors, as distin- 

. guished from mortgage) in Barrill on 
'' Assign. § 6, 4 ed. Quoted in Id. n. 4. 

v. Easterly, 62 Barb. 01. Followed 

(Action against trustee of manufacturing 
corporation for failure to file annual report) 
in Brouson n. Dimoek, 4 Han, 614. 

1- v. Evans. See Hewit v. Prime. 

v. Mitchell, 60 Barb. 288, 316. Discussed 

(Fraud by debtor — intent) in Wait on Fraud. 

■ Cowb. § 197. • 

- — v. N. Y. Central R. B. Co., 28 Barb. 
515. Disting'd (Necessity of notice of in- 
tent to search for property not delivered by 
carrier) in Fanvell ». Davis, 66 Barb. 73, 
81. 



t. N. t. Central, &c. B. R. Co., 1 Buff. 

Super. Ct. {Sheldon) 402. Aff'd in Id. 433. 
Further decision in 72 A 7 ! Y. 26. 

v. North American & M. Ins. Co., 53 

A 7 ". Y. 446. Approved (Liability for loss by 
explosion) in Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. 
Dorsey, 56 Md. 70; s. c, 40 Am. B. 403. 
Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 446, n. 3. 
Keller's ed. 

— v. North British Mercantile Ins. Co., 
66 Barb. 325. Followed (Liability for loss 
by explosion) in Briggs v. People's Ins. Co., 
66 Barb. 330. 

v. Oliver, 68 A"! Y. 336. See (Fore- 
closure of chattel mortgage) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 1737, n. 

v. Palmer. 20 Barb. 392. Modified on 

appeal, as Briggs «. Davis, 20 A 7 ". Y. 15, 
which see aliove. 

t. Partridge, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 

339. Affd in 64 jV? Y. 357 ; s. c, 21 Am. 
It. 617. See Kiersted v. Orange ^Alexan- 
dria R. R. Co. ; Williams v. Gillies. Decis- 
ion in 64 A 7 ". Y. followed (Who may sue or 
be sued on sealed instrument) in Nicoll v. 
Burke, 78 A 7 . Y. 584; Schafer v. Henkel, 75 
A 7 ". Y. 381. Explained and applied in 
Hensler v. Sefrin, 19 Him, 568. Disting'd 
in Carley v. Potts, 24 Hun, 574. Doctrine 
discussed in 16 Alb. L. J. 98. 

v. Penniman, Hopk. 300. Affd in 8 

Coin. 387; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 454, with note, 
collating cases. Decision in 8 Cow. followed 
with SIee». Bloom, 19 Johns. 456; s. c, 10 
Am. Dec. 273, and other cases (Liability of 
stockholders) in Hightower v. Thornton, 8 
6a. 486; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 412, 416, with 
note. Cited in Ohio Life Ins. & Trust 
Co. ■». Merchants' &c. Co., 11 Humph. 
(Tenn.) 1 ; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 742, 766, with 
note. Followed (Set-off by stockholder or 
director) with Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron 
Co., 4 Barb. 382, in Remington -». King, 11 
Abb. Pr. 278. Applied in Cheever v. Gil- 
bert Elev. R'y, 43 Super. Ct. (J. '& S.) 495. 
Approved in Webber v. Leighton, 8 Mo. 
App. 502. Disting'd (Presumed dissolution 
of corporation) in Huguenot Nat. Bk. v. 
Stiidwell, 6 Daly, 13, 17. With Slee n. 
Bloom, 19 Johns. 456; said in 18 Am. Dec. 
401, »., to be frequently cited in N. Y. 
courts. Discussed in 2 Kent Com. 312. 

v. Prosser-, 14 Wend. 227. See La 

Frombois ». Jackson. Disting'd (Adverse 
possession) in Wiseman v.' Lucksinger, 84 
KY. 31, 46. Discussed (Color of title) in 
Sedgio. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 781. 

v. Rowe, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 189; 

s. c, 4 Keyes, 424. Disting'd (Brokers' 
commissions) in Briggs v. Boyd, 56 N. Y. 
289, 294. 

-. — v. Tillotson. 8 Johns. 304. Discussed 
(Consideration for contract) in 1 Chitty on 
Contr. 73, nf. 1, 11 Am. ed. 

v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222. See Bost- 

wick v. Champion. Approved (Excuse ipt 
non-performance of carrier's contract) in 



BRIGHT— BRINK. 



101 



Bonsteel v. Same, 21 Id. 26. Questioned in 
Williams c. Vanderbilt, 28 K Y. 224, which 
afFd 2'J Barb. 491, 501, which see. 

v. Waldron, 9 Weekly Dig. 2J9. AfFd 

in 83 If. F. 582. 

Brigham v. Tillinghast, 13 Barb. 618. Rev'd 
in Vi If. Y. 215. See Nicholson v. Leavitt. 
Decision in 13 If. Y. disting'd (Validity of 
provisions in genera! assignment) in Jessup 
•o. liaise, 29 Barb. 539. Confirmed in Bene- 
dict v. Huntington, 32 If. Y. 219. Decision 
in 15 Barb. 618, collated with other cases 
(Provisions for sale on credit) in Bishop on 
Assign. § 211. Decision in 13 If. Y. com- 
mented upon in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 
. 332. Collated with Kellogg v. Slawson, 11 
■ If. Y. 302; Jessup v. Hulse, 21 id. 168; 
I Rapalee v. Stewart, 27 Id. 310 ; Benedict 
v. Huntington, 32 Id. 219; Woodburn v. 
Mosher, 9 Barb. 255 ; Townsend v. Stearns, . 
32 If. Y. 209, and other cases, in 31 Am. R. 
398. Quoted and discussed (Terms of sale) 
in Burrill on Assign. § 224, 4 ed. Decision 
in 15 Barb, -explained (Recitals) in Id. 
§ 131. Collated with other cases (Com- 
pounding debts) in Bishop on Assign. § 214. 

Bright v. Cmrie, 5 Sandf. 433; s. c, 10 
If. Y. Leg. Obs. 104. Superseded (Actions 
by executor, &c, in individual capacitv) by 
Code Civ. Pro. § 1814. 

v. Judson, 47 Barb. 29. Followed (Bona 

fide holder of bill, as against acceptor) in 
Philbrick v. Dallett, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
370. 

v. Supervisors of Chenango, 18 Johns. 

243. Disting'd (Allowance to officer for 
disbursements) in Crofut v. Brandt, 5 Daly, 
124, 126, which was aff'd in 58 N. Y. 106, 
113, which see. 

Brill v. Flagler, 23 Wend. 354. Overruled 
(Opinions as to value of dog) in Dunlap v. 
Snyder, 17 Barb. 561. Followed with 
Clark v. Baird, 9 If. Y. 183, in Cantling v. 
Hannibal & St. Joseph It. R. Co., 54 Mo. 
385; s.'c, 14 Am. II 476, 481. Applied, 
as to value of horse, in Miller v. Smith, 112 
Mass. 475. Followed (Opinions of witnesses 
as to value) in Vandine v. Burpee, 13 Mete. 
(Mass.) 288 ; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 733. Ap- 
plied (Killing animals trespassing or dam- 
age feasant) in Aldnch ». Wright, 53 If. H. 
398; s. c, 16 Am. li. 339, 349, 370. 

V. Tuttlc, 15 Bun, 289. Rev'd in 81 

N. Y. 454; s. c, 37 Am. R. 515. See 
Winter v. Drury. 

Brinckerlioff v. Board of Education, 6 Alb. 
Br. If. S. 428; s. c, 37 Bow. Pi: 499; 2 
Daly, 443. Aff'd in Poillon v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 47 If. Y. 666. Decision in 2 Daly, 
followed (Public property not subject to 
seizure and sale under execution) in The 
Fidelity, 16 Blatchf. O. Ct. 569, 572. 

v. Bostwick, 23 Hun, 237. Rev'd in 

88 N. Y. 52. 

v. Brown, 7 Johns. 217. See Slee n. 

Bloom. Applied (Dissolution of corpora- 
tion) in Bruce v. Piatt, 80 If. Y. 379, 389. 
Examined (Forfeiture of charter by corpora- 



tion) in Town v. Bank of River Basin, 2 
Doug. 550. 

v. Lansing, 4 Johns. Oh. 65; s. c, 8 

Am. Dec. 538. See James n. Morey; Storrs 
v. Barker. Followed with Berry v. Mut. 
Ins. Co., 2 Id. 603 (Postponement of prior 
mortgage) in Clabaugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill 
(Md.) 354; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 575, with 
note. 

v. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100. Further decis- 
ion in 43 Barb. 469. See Driggs «. Dwight ; 
Peters «. McKeon ; Trull v. Granger. Decis- 
ion in 24 Barb, with Trull v. Granger, 8 
IT. Y. 115 ; Driggs v. Dwight, 7 Wend. 71, 
said in Bush v. Cole, 28 If. Y. 261, not to 
be overruled (Liability of vender who con- 
tracts to sell lands to which he has no color 
of title) in Conger ». Weaver, 20 If. Y. 140. 

v. Stark ins. 11 Barb. 248. Discussed 

(Title to wild animals) in 1 Add. on Torts, 
513, n. 1, Wood's ed. 

v. Wemple, 1 Wend. 470. Recognized 

as authority (Necessity that trustees unite 
in transfer of trust property) in Brennan v. 
Willson, 71 If. Y. 507. Reviewed, at length 
with Baker v. Johnson, 2 Bill, 342 ; Turrill 
v. Norman, 19 Bar b. 263; People v. White, 
11 Barb. 26; Rexford v. Knight, 15 Barb. 
267; 11 If. Y. 308; Snyder v. Canal R. R. 
Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 829 (Appropriation of 
land by State for canal purposes) in Bird- 
sail v. Cary, 66 How. Pr. 358. 

v. Remsen, 8 Paige, 488. Aft'd in 

26 Wend. 325. Applied (Due publica- 
tion of will) in Bagley v. Blackman, 2 Lans. 
41 ; Nipper v. Groesbeck, 22 Barb. 670 ; 
Trustees of Theol. Sem. of Auburn o. Cal- 
houn, 38 Id. 159 ; Bagley v. Blackman, 2 
Lans. 43; Gilbert r. Knox, 52 iV. Y. 130; 
Grant v. Grant, 1 Sandf. Oh. 240 ; Neugeut 
v. Neugent, 2 Red/. 369 ; Mairs v. Freeman, 
3 Id. 193; Von Hoffman «. Ward, 4 Red/. 
260, 262. Cited and applied with Remsen 
v. Brinckerhoof, 26 Wei.d. 325 ; Rutherford 
v. Rutherford, 1 Den. 33 ; Brown v. De 
Selding, 4 Sandf. 20; Seymour «. Van Wyck, 
6 If. Y. 120; Ex parte Beers, 2 Bradf. 163 ; 
Wilson 1). Hettrick, 2 Bradf. 467; Burritt 
v. Silliman, 16 Barb. 198: Lewis v. Lewis, 
11 If. Y. 220; Hunt v. Mootrie, 3 Bradf. 
322; Robinson v. Smith, 13 Abb. Pr. 359; 
Abby t. Christie, 49 Barb. 276 ; Gilbert o. 
Knox, 52 If. Y. 125, in Walsh v. Laffan, 
2 Dem. 498. Explained in 4 Kent Com. 
515, n. b; Brink v. Gould, 7 Lans. 425; s. 
o., with points of counsel, in 43 How. Pr. 
289. 

Brink v. Gould, 7 Lans. 425; s. c, with 
points of counsel, 43 How. Pr. 289. 

v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 70 If. Y. 

593. Explained (Waiver by insurer) on 
subsequent appeal in 80 If. Y. 108, 111. 
Followed in Bell v. Lycoming F. Ins. Co., 
19 Hun, 238. Decision in 80 If. Y. dis- 
ting'd and limited in Deveus v. Mechanics' 
& Tra. Ins. Co., 83 If. Y. 168, 173. Fol- 
lowed in Titus o. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 81 
If. Y. 410. 



102 



BRINK— BRISBANE. 



T. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. See Brink v. 

Hanover Fire Ins. Co. 

- — v. Republic Fire Ins. Co., 2 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & ft) 550. Appeal dismissed in 56 
W. Y. 679. See Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. 
Co. 

T. Richtmyer, 14 Johns. 255. Followed 

(Trespass for fishing, &c.) in Whittaker «. 
Burhans, 62 Barb. 237. Applied with 
Colvin v. Burnet, 2 Hill, 620 (Construction 
of public grants) in Langdon v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 93 N. Y. 129. 

Brinkerhofi t. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 671. 
Another proceeding respecting the same 
demand in 7 Johns. Oh. 217. See Chautauqua 
Co. Bk. «. White; Hendricks v. Bobinson. 
Rule respecting remedy against fraudulent 
conveyances held inapplicable in cases of 
mechanics' liens, — in Gross ». Daly, 5 Daly, 
540, 553. Followed (Remedy against per- 
sonal assets of debtor) in Screven v. Bostick, 
2 McCords Oh. (S. 0.) 410; s. c, 16 Am. 
Dec. 664. Explained (Remedy against 
fraudulent conveyance) as to real estate, in 
McCullough v. Colby, 5 Bosw. 494. Ap- 
proved in Shaw v. Dwight. 27 K Y. 249. 
Explained in North Am. Fire Ins. Co.,*. 
Graham, 5 Sandf. 202. Explained as in- 
applicable to proceedings to enforce pay- 
ment of taxes, in Durante. Suprs' of Albany, 
26 Wend. 92. Applied (Necessity for 
return of execution) to supplementary pro- 
ceedings, in Owens ■». Dupignac, 9 Abb. Pr. 
185. 

v. , 6 Johns. Ch. 139. See Fellows 

v. Fellows ; Varick v. Smith. Applied (Set- 
ting aside fraudulent conveyance) in Fel- 
lows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682, 701. Qualified 
(Necessity of execution) in McCullough v. 
Colby, 5 Bosw. 477, 495. Compare Mc- 
Cartney b. Bostwick, 31 Ba/rb. 390. Relied 
on (Misjoinder) in Garner v. Harmony Mills, 
6 Alb. iv~. O. 212, 216; Loomis v. Brown, 
16 Barb. 331. Applied in Lexington & Big 
Sandy R. R. Co. v. Goodman, 25 Barb. 473 ; 
Emery «. Erskine, 63 Barb. 14; Griggs r. 
Griggs, Id. 299; Murray v. Hay, 1 Barb. 
Oh. 299; Simar v. Canaday, 53 N. Y. 305. 
Relied on (Multifariousness) in Sheldon v. 
Keokuk, &c. Packet Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 769. 
Applied in N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. v. 
Schuyler, 17 JST. Y. 607, which rev'd 1 Abb. 
Pr. 417, 427, which see; Board of Super- 
visors v. Deyoe, 77 N.Y. 225; Robinson «. 
Smith, 3 Paige, 231. Examined (Demurrer 
ore tenus) in Boyd v. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 71. 
Followed (Parties in creditors' action) in 
Clarkson «. De Peyster, 3 Paige, 323. Fol- 
lowed with Boyd v. Hoyt, 5 Paige, 65; 
Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682, in Reed v. 
Stryker, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 26, 28, 30, 
which rev'd 6 Abb. Pr. 109, which see; 
Morton v. Weil, 33 Barb. 30, 35. Followed 
in Dugan «. Vattier, 3 Blaclf. {hid.) 245 ; 
s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 105, 108, with note. Ex- 
plained in Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 108. 

v. Marvin, 5 Johns. Ch. 320, 326. Quali- 
fied (Security for future advances) in Monnot 



v. Ibert, 33 Barb. 24, 27 ; Truscott v. King, 6 
Barb. 349, which was rev'd in. 6 2v~. Y. 158, 
which see. Explained in Bank of Albion v. 
Burns, 2 Bans. 57. Applied in Hall v. 
Grouse, 13 Hun, 563; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 
N. Y. 208; Cook v. Whipple, 55 AT Y. 167; 
Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Oh. 84; Ackerman 
v. Hunsicker, 21 Hun, 53, which was rev'd 
in 85 N~. Y. 43, which see. Followed and 
approved with Livingston v. Mclnlay, 16 
Johns. 165; Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch. 
78: Bank of Utica v. Finch, 3 Barb. Ch. 
203; Thomas ». Kelsey, 30 Ba/rb. 268; 
Robinson v. Williams, 22 JV. Y. 380, in 
Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749 ; s. c. 
2 Am. B. 653, 657. Applied (Rights of 
partnership creditors) in Menagh v. Whit- 
well, 52 K Y. 146, 173. Followed in Doner 
v. Stauffler, Penr. &W. (Pa.) 198; s. c, 21 
Am. Dee. 370, 374. Said in note thereto, at 
p. 374, to have been recognized as authority 
in King's Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 126 ; Snodgrass' 
Appeal, 13 Id. 474 ; Deal v. Bogne, 20 Id. 234. 
Explained (Statement on confession of judg- 
ment) in Whitney v. Kenyon, 7 Moid. Pr. 
460; Schoolcraft v. ^Thompson, 9 Id. 62. 
Applied in Stebbins V East. Soc. of M. E 
Church, 12 Abb. Pr. 413. 

v. Perry, 59 Sow. Pr. 156, n. Further 

decision in 12 Weekly Dig. 459. 

Brink ley v. Brinkley, 47 JST. Y. 40. Further 
decisions in 50 K Y. 184; s. c, 10 Am. B. 
460, also in 2 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 501, 
which was affd, in effect, in 56 K Y. 192. 
Decision in 47 N. Y. approved (Rights of 
party in contempt) in Matter of Genet, 1 
Hun, 296. Followed in Marshall v. Marshall, 
2 Hun, 238, 248; Matter of Steinert, 24 
Hun, 246, 248. Applied in Walker v. 
Walker, 82 N. Y. 260, 264. Disting'd 
(Appeal in proceedings to punish for con- 
tempt) in Carrington ». Florida R. R. Co., 
52 K Y. 583, 585. See Code Civ. Pro. 
1881. § 2273, n. Decision in 2 Svp'm. Ct. 
( T. & G.) applied (Adoption of special ver- 
dict) in Madison University v. White, 25 
Hun, 490. 494. Applied (Disregarding spe- 
cial verdict) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weehly 
Dig. 401. Decision in 50 N. Y. approved 
but disting'd (Allowance of alimony) in 
Collins v. Collins, 71 K Y. 269, 273, Ap- 
plied (Presumption of marriage from coha- 
bitation, etc.) in Byrnes «. Dibble, 5 Bed/. 
383, 385. Commented on (Marriage and 
divorce — English law, how far applicable) 
in Bish. on Mar. & D. § 72, n. 2, 6 ed. 

Brisbane v. Caiues, 10 Johns. 45. Aff'd in 
13 Johns. 9. 

• v. Adams, 1 Sandf. 195. Rev'd in 3 K F. 

129. 

v. Brisbane, 20 Hun, 48. Applied 

(Affidavits on application for examination 
before trial) in Tenney v. Mautner, 1 Civ. 
Pro. R. 64, 71. 

v. Macomber, 56 Barb. 375. Said in 6 

Alb. L. J. 196, to have been affd by Ct of 
App. in Jan. 1875. 

Y. Pratt, 4 Den. 63. Disapproved (Pos- 



BRISCOE- BROCK W A Y. 



103 



session of note as evidence of ownership) in 
Seeioy «. Engell, 17 Barb. 530 ; Smith v. 
Schanck, 18 Barb. 344; James v. Chalmers, 
C iV. Y. 209, 213, 215. Approved (Admis- 
sions of prior owner, admissible against as- 
signee without value) in Von Sachs ». Kretz, 
72 K Y. 548, 554. 

Briscoe, Matter of, 51 How. Pr. 422. Reas- 
serted (Judicial interference with executive) 
in Matter of Nichols, 6 Abb. K 0. 464, 
494. 

Bristol, Matter of, 16 ^156. Pr. 184. Further 
decision, in Id. 397. 

— — v. Barker, 14 Johns. 205. Trial at nisi 
prius, reported in Anth. N. P. 235. 

V. Burl, 7 Johns. 254; s. c, 5 Am. Dec. 

264. Followed with Shotwell ». Few, 7 
Johns. 302; Durell ». Mosher, 8. Id. 445 
(Evidence of conversion) in Reida. Colcock, 
1 Nott & McC. (8. O.) 592 ; s. c, 9 Am. Dec. 
739. Followed with Murray «. Burling, 10 
JAns. 172; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323, 
in Maxwell v. Harrison, 8 G-a. 61 ; s. c, 52 
Am. Bee. 385, 388, with note. Included 
in Bigel. Oases -an Torts, 389. Disting'd 
witi Phillips v. Hall, 8 Wend. 610 (Liability 
of attaching officer for trespass or conver- 
sion; in Rand v. Sargent, 23 Me. 326; s. c, 
39 Am. Bee. 625, with note. 

v Chapman, 34 Bow. Pr. 140. Dis- 
ting'd (Removal of causes to U. 8. Courts) 
in Chiniberlain «. Am. Nat. L. &T. Co., 11 
Sun, 368, 373. Relied on in dissenting 
opinion of Bbady, J., in Chatham Nat'l Bank 
v. Merchant's Nat'l Bank of W. Va., 4 
Sup'm. Gt. {T. & O.) 196, 201. 

v. Spragne, 8 Wend. 423, 425. Cited and 

discuss3d with Rosa v. Brotherson, 10 Id. 
85; Baak of Salina o. Babcock, 21 Id. GOO; 
Bauk of Sandusky ». Scoville, 24 Id. 115; 
Williams «. Smith, 2 Bill, 301, and other 
cases (Effect of receipt of negotiable paper 
iu payment of precedent debt) inBostwiekfl. 
Dodge, 1 Bouij. (Mich.) 413; s. c, 41 Am. 
Dec. 584, with note. 

British Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Com- 
missioners of Taxes. 31 N~. Y. 32; s. c, 
more fully, 18 Abb. Pr. 118; 28 Bow. Pr. 
41 ; 1 /{eyes, 303. Applied (Taxation of 
foreign corporations) in People ex rel. Bay 
State Shoe & Leather Co. v. McLean, 80 
N~. Y. 254, 259. 

Brittin r. Peabody, 4 Bill, 61, 66. Modified 
(Test for change of venue) in Cook ». Pen- 
dergast, 61 Gal. 72. 

v. Wilder, 6 Bill, 242. See Holbrook v. 

Murray. Collated with Roraback v. Steb- 
bins, 33 Bow. Pr. 278 ; First Nat'l Bank v. 
Garlinghouse, 53 Barb. 615; Moncrief v. 
Ward, 16 Abb. Pr. 354 ; s. c, 25 Bow. I J r. 
94; Walkers. Swayzee, 3 Abb. Pr. 136; 
Chapman v. Lemon, 11 Bow. Pr. 235, 238, 
and other cases (Judgments against mar- 
ried women) in 55 Am. Dec. 599, n. 

Britton v. Friuk, 3 Bow. Pr. 102. See argu- 
ments of counsel in 1 Bow. App. Gas. 4. 

v. Lorenz, 3 Daly, 23. Aff'd in 45 A 7 ". Y. 

61. Decision in 45 iV". Y. applied (Necessity 



of acceptance by assignee in general assign- 
ment) in Ronnie e. Bean, 24 Bun, 123. Ex- 
plained (Express trusts in general assign- 
ment; in Burrill on Assign. 239, n. 2, 4 ed. 
Reviewed with other cases (Communica- 
tions from client to attorney) in 36 Am. B. 
633, n. See Code Gin. Pro. 1881, § 835. n. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Bow. Pr. 251 ; 

s. c, 12 Abb. Pr. 367, n. Explained and 
limited with Benson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
10 Barb. 223 ; People «. Hawes, 37 Id. 440 
(Private rights of municipal corporations) 
in Darlington v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 31 N. Y. 
164, 201. Explained (Power of municipal 
corporation to limit its legislative powers 
by contract) in Whitney n. Mayor, &c. of N. 
Y., 6 Abb. xV. G. 329, 342. Applied with 
Presbyterian Church v. City of N. Y., 5 
Cow. 538, in Trenholm v. Charleston, 3 8. G. 
347; s. c, 16 Am. B. 732, 735. 

y. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 3 

Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 220. Another opinion, 
in Id. 442. 

Brizsee v. Maybee, 21 Wend. 144. See Suy- 
dam ■». Jenkins. Approved as a leading 
case (Damages in replevin or conversion) in 
Twinam «. Swart, 4 Bans. 263, 270. Fol- 
lowed with Cable v. Dakin, 20 Wend. 172; 
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 10 Johns. 378, in Mc- 
Donald v. Scaife, 11 Pa. St. 381; s. c, 51 
Am. Bee. 556, 558. Applied in Spicer v. 
Waters, 65 Barb. 227, 235. Discussed in 3 
Pars, on Gontr. 201, n. a. 

Broad v. Hoffman, 6 Barb. 177. Followed 
(Amount of brokerage) in Cook *. Phillips, 
56 N. Y. 310, 314. 

Broadhead v. Lycoming- Fire Ins. Co., 14 
Ban, 452. Further decision in 23 Id. 397. 

Broadway, Matter of, 63 Barb. 572. Previous 
proceeding in 42 Bow. Pr. 220; s. c, 61 
Barb. 483, which was aff'd in 49 A 7 ". Y. 150. 

Broadwell v. Getman, 2 Den. 87. Followed 
(Contracts not to be. performed within a 
year) in Weir ■». Hill, 2 Bans. 278. Ques- 
tioned in Talmadge ». Rensselaer & Sara- 
toga R. R. Co., 13 Barb. 493. Doubted in 
Waterman on Sp. Perf. § 290, n. Collated, 
with other cases, in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 
883. Cited, as supported by the weight of 
American authority, in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 
112, n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

Brock way t. Allen, 17 Wend. 40; s. c, 
Thomps. Liab. of Off. & A. 32, with notes, 
p. 77, &c. See Hills v. Bannister; Mott v. 
Hicks. Followed (Proof that maker of note 
signed as agent) in Clealand v. Walker, 11 
Ala. 1058; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 238, 240. 
Applied in Metcalf v. Williams, 104 
U. S. 93. 

v. Burnap, 12 Barb. 347; s. c, 8 How. 

Pr. 188. Rev'd in 16 Barb. 309. See 
Allen v. Crary. Decision in 12 Barb, limited 
(Action of replevin, when maintainable) in 
Knapp v. Smith, 27 If. Y. 277. Decision in 
16 Barb, approved in Nichols v. Michael, 23 
1ST. Y. 269. Limited in Nash «. Fredericks, 
12 ^156. Pr. 147. Followed in Drake v. 
Wakefield, 11 Bow. Pr. 106. 108 



104 



BROCKWAY— BEOOKLYN PAEK COM. 



T. Kinney, 2 Johns. 210. Followed 

with Rice i>. King, 7 Id. 26 ; Platner v. Best, 
11 Id. 530 (Judgment as evidence) in Kil- 
hefferj). Herr, 17 -Ser^. & It. {Pa.) 319; s. 
c, 17 Am. Dec. 658. 

T. People, 2 -HiK, 558. Overruled (In- 
dictment for keeping bawdy-house) in 
People v. Erwin, 4 Den. 129. 

v. Wells. See Slee v. Manhattan Co. 

Examined (Distinction between pledge and 

i chattel mortgage) in Thomas on Mort. 433. 

Broderick t. Smith, 15 How. Pr. 434; s. c, 
more fully, 26 Bait). 539. Explained (Relief 
against payment of principal secured by 
mortgage) in Ferris v. Ferris, 28 Barb. 
29, 32. 

Brodsky v. Ihms, 25 How. Pr. 471 ; s. c, 
more fully, 16 Abb. Pr. 251. 

Broiestedt v. South Side E. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 
220. Explained (Ejectment — joinder of ac- 
tions) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, 
§ 639. 

Bromagham v. Clapp, 5 Cow. 295. Rev'd in 
9 Cow: 5.30. 

Bromley v. Smith. See Legg v. Stillman. 

Brondage v. Warner, 2 Hill, 145. Compare 
(Ejectment by plaintiff not entitled to pos- 
session) Rogers v. Sinsheimer, 50 N. Y. 
646. 

Bronuer v. Fruaenthal, 9 Bosw. 350. Aff'd 
in 37 N. Y. 166. Decision in 37 N. Y. relied 
on (Admissibility of deposition de bene esse) 
in Gardner v. Bennett, 38 -Super. Ct. (J. & 
S.) 197. 

Branson's Estate, 1 Tuck.- 464, 467. Fol- 
lowed (Necessity that executor be named in 
the will) in Hartnette. Wand ell, 2 Hun, 555; 
s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 101. 

Branson v. Branson, 48 How. Pr. 481. Dis- 

' ting'd (Who entitled to accumulated income 
of trust fund) in Ellinwood v. Beare, 59 Id. 
506. 

T. Earl, 17 Johns. 63, 65. Applied wifli 

Burdick v. Green, 18 Id. 14 (What consti- 
tutes commencement of action) in Johnson 
v. Farwell, 7 Oreenl. (Me.) 370; s. c, 22 
Am. Dec. 203'. See also, 15 Am. Dec. 344, 
n. ; 18 Id. 120. 

v. Fitzhugh, 1 Hill, -185. Disting'd 

(Effect of release of one of joint wrong- 

■ 'doers) in Ellis v. Esson, 50 Wise. 138; s. c, 

■ 36 Am. R. 830, 833. 

v. Gleason, 7 Barb. 472. Explained 

(Delivery of goods sold where to be made) 
in 2 Pars, on Contr, 650, n. b. 

v. Mann, 13 Johns. 460. See (Costs in 

justice's courts) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
3074, n. 

t. Noyes, 7 Wend. 188. See Lovett v. 

Adams. Applied (Conditional delivery of 
bond) in People ». Bostwick, 32 N. Y. 445. 

v. Wiman, 10 Barb. 406. Aff'd in 8 

N. Y. 182. See Bennett v. Hull. Followed 
(Contracts to manufacture as affected by 
statute of frauds) in Ferren v. O'Hara, 62 
Barb. 517, though there said to conflict 
with Downs v.. Ross, 23 Wend. 270. Com- 
pare Passaic Manuf. Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 



495. Explained in Benj. on Sales, % 109, 
n. y. (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). 

Brooker v. Coffin, 5 Johns. 188 ; s. c, 4 Am. 
Dee. 337. See Gibbs v. Dewey. Said in 12 
Am. Dec. 41, n. to have been extensively 
followed (Slanderous charges of crime) in 
N. Y. and elsewhere. See particularly 
Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 234; Burton v. 
Burton, 3 Iowa, 316. St. Martin v. Desnoyor, 
1 Minn. 156, thought by the editor from its / 
citation of Young v. Miller, 3 Hill, 21, to/ 
adopt the doctrine of the N. Y. decisions./ 
Approved in Andres v. Koppenheafer, 
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 255; s. c, &Am. Dec. 64t 
650. Included in 1 Hare & W. Am. Leal. 
Gas. 5 ed. 87. Opposed (Charging woman 
with prostitution) in Miller v. Parish,l8 
Pick 364; Woodbury v. Thompson, 2 ACi 
194; Frisbie v. Fowler, 2 Conn. 707. Jn- 
" eluded in Bigel. Cases on Torts, 77. Bel- 
lowed (Words actionable/ierse) with Yo«ng 
«. Miller, 3 Hill, 21 ; Quiiiii v. O'Gara, J E. 
D. Smith, 388; Van Ness v. Hamilton; 10 
JoJms. 367, in Hollingsworth v. ShaV, 19 
Ohio St. 430; s. c, 2 Am. It' 411. 

Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wendj 342. 
Approved and applied (Keeping tender 
good) in Dodge v. Fearey, 19 Hun, 27f. 

Brooklyn Central R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn 
City R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 358. limited 
(Extent of street railroad franchise) in 
Brooklvn City, &c. R-. R. Co. v. Cpney Is- 
land, <fec. R. R. Co., 35 Id. 364. 371 Com- 
pare Brooklyn Central & Jamaica Ij. R. Co. 
«. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 33 Id. 120. 

Brooklyn Central & Jamaica R. R. Co. v. 
Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 33 B\.rb. 420. 
Examined and approved (Extendof street 
railroad franchise) in Brooklyn City, &c. R. 
R. Co. v. Coney Island, &c. R. £. Co., 35 
Id. 364, 368, 371. Followed (Construction 
of street railroad not imposition of new 
burden) in Van Bokelen v. Brooklyn City 
R. R. Co., 5 Blatehf. C. Ct. 379.1 

Brooklyn Oil Refinery v. Brown, 38 How. 
Pr. 444. Overruled in effect in 'further de- 
cision in 61 K Y. 643. 

Brooklyn Oil Works v. Brown, 7 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. 382. See (Adjournment of trial) 
Gallaudet v. Steinmetz, 6 Abb. A. C. 224, n. 

Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. Arm- 
strong, 3 Lans. 429. Rev'd in 4l> A T . Y. 234. 
See Presbyterian Church v. City of N. Y. 
Decision in 45 N. Y. applied (Right in lands 
taken for public use) in BirdsalljD. Cary, 66 
How. Pr. 358. Limited (Fee by implication, 
in property taken for public usfe) in Wash. 
Cemetery v. Prospect Park, &qi R. R. Co., 
68 N. Y. 595. Approved and applied (Com- 
pensation for property taken by eminent 
domain) in Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. v. Gilbert 
Elev. Ry. Co., 3 Abb. A". O. 399. Applied 
(Purchaser's right to refuse title) in Wood 
v. Squires, 1 Hun, 481. Disting'U (Evidence 
of public use) in Matter of Deansville Ceme- 
tery Assoc, 66 N. Y. 572. Cited (Contract 
created by accepting bonds issued under stat- 
ute) in Louisiana!). Pillsbury, 105 U. S. 288 



BROOKLYN STEAM TRANSIT CO.- BROOME. 



105 



Breoklyn Steam Transit Co. v. City of 
Brooklyn, 78 If. Y. 524. Confirmed as to 
loss of power to exercise right of eminent 
domain in Matter of Brooklyn, Winfield & 
Newtown R. R. Co., 81 N. Y. 71. 

Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Bulmer, 49 If. Y. 
84. Followed (Service by publication) in 
Pier ». Amory, 40 Wise. 574. See Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 441, n. 

Brooklyn White Load Co. v. Masnry, 25 
Barb. 416. Approved (What constitutes 
trade-mark) in Wolfe v. Gaulard, 18 How. 
Pr. 69. Explained in Newman «. Alvord, 
40 Barb. 588; s. c. 35 How. Pr. 108, which 
was aft'd in 51 If. Y. 189, where Brooklyn 
White Lead Co. v. Masury was disting'd. 
Considered in Congress & Empire Spring 
Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 
Barb. 526, 535. Explained in 2 Pars, on 
Qontr. 257 bo, n. y ; Id. 257 by, n. e. 
Reviewed (Use of geographical names as 
trade-marks) in 10 Alb. L. J. 209. Collated 
with other cases (Injunction against viola- 
tion of trade-mark), in Tkomps. on Pron. 
Bern. 259. Quoted and explained in 2 High 
on Inj. 2 ed. § 1067, n. 5. 

Brooklyn, Winlield, &c. R. R. Co., Matter 
Of, 72 N. Y. 245; s. c, less fully, 55 How. 
Pr. 14. Further decision in 75 N. Y. 335; 
also in 19 Hun, 314, and that aff'd in 81 
If. Y. 69. Decision in 72 If. Y. followed 
(Loss of corporate existence by failure to 
comply with charter) in Brooklyn Steam 
Transit Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 78 If. Y. 
524, 530. Disting'd in Union Hotel Co. v. 
Hersee, 79 If. Y. 459. Disting'd with 
Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. ». City of 
Brooklyn, 78 If. Y. 527, in Hughes «. 
Northern Pac. R'y Co., U. S. Giro. Gt., D. 

' Oregon, Oct. 1883, 18 Fed. Bep. 117. 
Quoted and explained in MoraweU on 
Corp. § 147. Decision in 75 If. Y. disting'd 
(What is violation of the statute forbid- 
ding passage of private or local bill, grant- 
ing right to lay down railroad tracks) in 
People v. Long Island R. R. Co., 9 Abb. If. G. 
204.; s. c, 60 How. Pr. 418. 

Brookman v. Hamill, 54 Barb. 209. Aff d 
in 43 If. Y. 554. See Moores v. Lunt. 
Motion for rehearing upon ground that under 
decision in Vose ». Cockioft, 44 If. Y. 415, 
question as to constitutionality of law was 
waived, — denied in 46 If. Y. 636. with 
note, correcting syllabus of report in 43 
If. Y. Re-affd (Unconstitutionality of 
State statutes providing for enforcement of 
maritime contracts) in Poole v. Kermit, 59 
JV. Y. 554, 556, which affd 37 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 114, which see. Followed in Mur- 
phy v. Salem, 1 Hun, 141. Re-Surplus and 
Remnants of the proceeds of the Ship Edith, 
11 Blatchf. G. Gt. 451, 453,456; The Cir- 
cassian, Id. 472, 479; the B. F. Woolsey, 18 
Id; 344, 348. Cited as authority (Jurisdiction 
of State courts as to maritime contracts) in 
Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 6 Lam. 
434, which was aff'd in 56 N. Y.\, which 
see. Explained (Contract where maritime) 



in Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 If. Y. 409, which 
aft'd 18 Hun, 56, which see. Followed with 
The Josephine, 39 If. Y. 19, in Steamer 
Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 602; s. c, 
22 Am. B. 397, 405. Disting'd (Jurisdiction 
of Court of Appeals) in Delaney v. Brett, 5 1 
If. Y. 78, 82. 

v. Metcalf, 5 Bom. 429. Aff d in 32 

N. Y. 591. Subsequent proceedings in 4 
Bobt. 568. Decision in 4 Bobt. disap- 
proved (Estoppel from pleading statute of 
limitations) in Shapley v. Abbott, 42 If. P. 
443, 455. 
Brooks v. Avery, 4 If. Y. 225. Collated 
with Post v. Dart, 8 Paige, 039, and other 
cases (Right of second morgagee to plead 
usury) in Pritchett «. Mitchell, 17 Ban. 
355; s. c, 22 Am. B. 287, with note, collat- 
ing cases. 

■ v. Ball, 18 Johns. 337. Criticised at 

length (Oath as consideration) in 14 Alb. L. 
J. 112. 

v. Bryce, 21 Wend. 14. Rev'd in 26 

Wend. 3(57. 

v Buffalo & Niagara Falls R. R. Co., 

25 Barb. 600. Aff'd in 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 
211; S.C., 27 Barb. 532, n. 

v. Christopher, 5 Duer, 216. Limited 

(Conditional admission of evidence) in 
Kerslake «. Schoonmaker, 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. 
& G.) 524, 527; s. c, 1 Hun, 436. 

v. Curtis, 4 Lam. 283. Affd in 50 

If. Y 639; s. c, 10 Am. B. 535. Decision 
in 50 If. Y. followed (Right to add to party- 
wall) in Musgrave v. Sherwood, 23 Hun, 
675, n., which was rev'd in Id. 669, 685, 
which see. Disting'd in Same v. Same, 53 
How. Pr. 311. Followed in Vrooman v. 
Jackson, 6 Hun, 320, 330. Approved in 
Dauenhauer t. Devine, 01 Tex. 480; s. c, 
32 A in. B. 627. Quoted in Wood on Ifuis. 2 
ed,§ 226. 

v. French. See Savacool ». Boughton. 

v. Hanfoni, 15 .Abb. Pr. 342. Dis- 
approved (Assignability of demand for 
damages on account of personal tort) in 
Alackey v. Mackey, 43 Barb. 58. Denied 
in Zogbaum v. Parker, 06 Barb. 341, as 
overruled in Mackey «. Mackey.' Followed 
(Attorney's lien, as subject to set-off) in- 
Sanders v. Gillett, 8 Daly, 183. 

v. Moore, 67 Barb. 393, 395. Disting'd 

(Effect of part payment by debtor) in Luu- 
dington *. Bell, 77 If. Y. 138, 143. 

v. Scliwerin, 54 If. Y. 343. See Filer 

». N. Y. Central R. R. Co. Disting'd (Wife's 
earnings) in Reynolds v. Robinson. 64 If. Y. 
589; Birkbeck v. Ackroyd, 11 Hun, 365. 
Criticised in Heau v. Kiah, 6 Sup'm. Gt. 
(T. & G.) 454, as overruling Filer v. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 49 If. Y. 47. Applied 
in Snow «. Cable, 1 9 Hun, 280. 

v. Shultz. 5 Bobt. 656. Opinion of 

Robektson, Ch. J., reported in 3 Abb. Pr. 

If. S. 124. 

Broome v. Taylor, 13 Hun, 341. Rev'd as 

to defendant Helen F. Taylor, and aifd as 

to James I. Taylor in 76 If. Y. 564. Former 



106 



BKOOME COUNTY BANK— BEOWK 



decision in 9 Run, 155. Decision in 76 R. Y. 
disting'd (Married woman's liability) in 
Scott v. Otis, 25 Hun, 33, 35. 

Broome County Bank v. Lewis, 18 Wend. 
5G5. Disting'd (Striking out answer as 
sham) in McCarty «. O'Donnell. 7 Robt. 
434. 

Brotherson t. Consalus, 26 Row. Pr. 213. 
Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196 to have been aff'd 
by Ct. of App. in Jan. 1871. 

Brotherton v. People, 14 Run, 486. Aff'd 
in 75 R. Y. 159. Decision in 75 R. Y. fol- 
lowed (Burden of proof as to insanity) in 
O'Connella. People, 87 R. Y. 377. Eeiterated 
(Insanity as a defense for crime) in Walker 
v. People, 88 R. Y. 81. 

Bronghton t. Mitchell, 29 How. Pr. 68; 
s. c, more fully, 19 Abb. Pr. 163. See 
Carter v. Werner. 

y. Otis, 29 Barb. 196. Aff d as Boughton 

v. Otis, 21 R. Y. 261. 

v. Whalloii, 8 Wend. 474; s. c, 11 R. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 437, with brief note of 
other cases. » 

Brouwer v. Appleby, 1 Sandf. 158. Said in 
4 Sandf. Ch. 581, n. to have been aff'd in 
Ct. of App. Applied (Proof of liabilities 
of insurance company, in proceedings on 
premium note) in Thomas «. Whallon, 31 
Pari. 172, 178. Examined (Nature of notes 
given on organization of insurance com- 
pany) in Howland v. Edmunds, 33 Barb. 
439, 454. 

v. Cotheal, 10 Barb. 216. Aff'd in 5 

R. Y. 562. 

v. Harbeck, ] Puer, 114. Rev'd in 9 

R. Y. 589. Decision in 9 R. Y. followed 

.- with Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 R. Y. 9 (Transfer 
by insolvent incorporation) in Hoyt v. Shel- 
don, 3 Bosw. 267, 305. Cited as authority 
in Smith v. Hall, 5 Bosw. 325. Explained 
(Evidence of insolvency of corporation) in 
Ferry,!!. Bank of Central N. Y.,. 15 Row. Pr. 
451. Applied in Cheever v. Gilbert Elev. 
R'y Co., 43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 488. Dis- 
ting'd in Dutchere. Importers' & Trad. Nat. 
Bank, 59 R. Y. 5, 10 ; Marine B'k of N. Y. 
v. Vail, 6 Bosw. 430. 

v. Jones. See Hills v. Miller. 

Brower v. Bowers, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 214. 
Compare (Circumstantial proof of marriage) 
Camden v. Belgrade, 73 Me. 126; s. c, 46 
Am. Pec. 364. 

v. Fisher, 4 Johns. Ch. 411. Included 

with notes (Contracts by deaf and dumb 
persons) in Ewell Lead. Cos. on Inf. &c. 
721. 

v. Kingsley, 1 Johns. Cos. 334; s. c, 1 

R. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 344, with brief 
note. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 3 Barb. 254. 

See Adriance v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Dis- 
ting'd (Right of individual to maintain ac- 
tion to restrain or avoid acts of public au- 
thorities) in Roosevelt v. Draper, 7 Abb. Pr. 
126. ' 

T. Peabody, 18 Barb. 599; s. c, 10 Row. 

Pr. 125. Rev'd in 13 R. Y. 121; s. c, with 



points of counsel, 2 Abb. Pr. 211. Decision 
in 13iV. Y. disting'd (Delivery of goods, 
when absolute) in Blossom v. Champion, 28 
Barb. 222. Approved (Receipt, as subject 
of larceny) in People v. Bradley, 4 Park. 
247. 
Brown's Accounting, 16 Abb. Pr. R S. 457. 
Disting'd (Liability of trustee under will for 
loss) in Bates v. Underhill, 3 Redf. 372. 
See (Allowance to executor, &c. for ex- 
penses) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2562, n. 

Brown v. Babcoek, 3 Row. Pr. 305. Fol- 
lowed and approved (Power to allow amend- 
ments, under Code) in Prindlea. Aldrich, 13 
Rout. Pr. 466. 

v. Beuient, 8 Johns. 96. See Peterson 

v. Clark. Examined (Discharge of mort- 
gage by implication of law) in Thurber s. 
Jewett, 3 Mich. 305 ; citing Case v. Boughton, 
11 Wend. 109; Langdon v. Buel, 9 Id. 83; 
Smith v. Acker, 23 Id. 667; Fuller v. Acker, 
1 Hill, 475. Approved (Breach of condi--- 
tion in chattel mortgage) in Tannahill v. 
Tuttle, 3 Mich. 110; citing Butler v. Miller, 
1 Pen. 407, and many other cases. 

v. Betts, 13 Wend. 29. Disapproved 

(Questions arising on return to certiorari) in 
Birdsall v. Phillips, 17 Wend. 464: See, 
also, Morewood v. Hollister, 6 R. Y. 309. 

v. Blydcnburgh, 1 R. Y. 141; s. c, 57 

Am. Dec. 506, with note. See Kellogg v. 
Smith. Disting'd (Payment of mortgage 
without production of bond and mortgage) 
in dissenting opinion in Foster v. Beals, 21 
R. Y. 247; Purdy v. Huntington, 46 Barb. 
389; Van Keurens v. Corkins, 66 'R. Y. 81. 
Disting'd as inapplicable to case of payment 
of note, in Doubleday v. Kress, 50 R. Y. 
410. 

v. Bowen, 30 R. Y. 519, 541. Disting'd 

(Title by Estoppel) in Wiseman v. Luck- 
singer, 84 R. Y. 31, 40. Collated, with 
many other authorities, in 19 Cent. L. J. 87. 
Reviewed with Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 
1 Johns. Ch. 344 ; Storrs v. Barker, fi Id. 
166; Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595; Jack- 
son v. Shearman, 6 Johns. 19, 21 ; Jackson 
v. Vosbu:gh, 7 Id. 186; Swick v. Sears, 
1 Rill, 17, 19 ; Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 
6S, and other cases, in Hayes v. Livingston, 
34 Mich. 384; s. c, 22 Am. R. 533, 537, 
5!8, 540, 543. Quoted and discussed in 
Wood on Ruis. 2 ed. § 359. 

v. Brown. Case of this name said in 6 

Alb. L. J. 167 to have been aff'd by Ct. of 
App. Jan. 23, 1872. 

v. , 4 Robt. 688; s. c, 31 How. Pr. 

48!. See Shaw v. White. Approved (Dis- 
tinction between causes of action as legal or 
equitable) in Pomeroy on Rem. § 70, n. 1. 
See (Admeasurement of dower) Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 1607, n. 

v. , 34 Parb. 533, 536. Followed 

(Lobby service contract) in Russell v. 
Burton, 66 Barb. 539, 547. 

V. , 6 How. Pr. 320 ; s. c, 6 N. Y. 

106. Explained with Pngsley v. Risscl- 
burgh, 10 R. Y. 420; Wiggins *>. Tall- 



BROWN. 



107 



madge, 7 How. Pr. 404 (Jurisdiction of 
Court of Appeals in action commenced in 
justice's court) in Flora v. Carbean, 33 A 7 ". 
Y. Ill, as decided before Code amendment 
in 1857. 

y. — -, 30 N. Y. 519. See Ward v. 

People. 

v. , 1 Hun, 443; s. c, 3 Sup'm. Gt. 

(T. & 0.) 477. Rev'd in 58 A 7 ! Y. (500, for 
error as to want of power to open default in 
divorce case. On further hearing order 
rev'd upon the merits of application, in 2 
Hun, 677; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Gl. (T. & G.) 
GUI. See (Opening judgment taken by de- 
fault on constructive service) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 415, n. 

y. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 

N. Y. 191. Questioned and disting'd (Im- 
puting violation of ordinance as negligence) 
in Jetter v. N. Y. & Harlem 11 R. Co., 2 
Keyes, 1 54. Overruled i n Beisiegcl v. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 14 A bb. Pr. N. S. 29. Re- 
ferred to as overruled in Massoth i>. Delaware 
& Hudson Canal Co., 64 K Y. 524, which 
aff'd 6 Hun, 314, where Brown v. Buffalo & 
State Line R. R. Co. was compared. Said also 
to be overruled in Ryan v. Thompson, 38 
Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 133, 135. Reviewed, 
with other cases, in Knupfle v. Knicker- 
bocker Ice Co., 84 K Y. 488, 490. Dis- 
approved with Fello v. Jones, 4 Keyes, 328, 
in Grey v. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387, 
citing Jetter ». N. Y. & Harlem R. It. Co., 2 
Keyes, 154. Disapproved in Correll v. The 
B. C. R. & M. R. It. Co., 38 Iowa, 120 ; s. c, 
18 Am. 11. 24. Followed (Nature of right 
to recover damages for injury causing death) 
in Roach v. Imperial Mining Co., 7 Fed. Pep. 
098. 

— v. Batcher's & Drover's Bank, 6 Hill, 
443; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 755. with note. 
See Mcrritt v. Clason ; Palmer v. Stephens. 
Included (Sufficiency of indorsement) in 
Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 121, with note ; also 
in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Etch. 110, 
with note. Followed and applied in Mc- 
Intire s. Preston, 5 Gihn. {111.) 48; s. c, 48 
Am. Dec. 321, 329, with note. Applied 
(Sufficiency of signature) in David v. 
Wm'burgh City F. Ins. Co., S3 N. Y. 265, 
209; Zann v. llaller, 71 Ind. ICC; s. c, 
36 Am. P. 193, 195. Explained in 1 Benj. 
on Sales, <j 257, n. 8 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) 

— v. Ciid'y, 19 Wend. 477. Approved (Evi- 
dence of service of process in justices' courts) 
in Reno v. Pinder, 20 A". Y. 298. 

— v. Cattaraugus Mut. Ins. Co., 18 A 7 ! Y. 
385. See Jennings w. Chenango Mut. Ins. 
Co. With Jennings v. Chenango Co. Mut. 
Ins. Co., 2 Den. 75; Vandervoort v. Colum- 
bian Ins. Co., 2 Cat. 155; Cheriotu. Barker, 
2 Johns. 346, overruled (Authority of in- 
surance agent in preparing applications) by 
Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co.. 38 A T . Y. 550, 
which relied on Plumb v. Cattaraugus Co. 
Mu'j-ul Ins. Co., 18 X Y. 392. Explained 
aud criticised (Notice of renewal of insur- 
ance; in Heal/ v. Imperial Fire Ins. Co., 5 



Nev. 276. Cited with other cases (Acts of 
insurance agents) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 
495. Re-aff'd (Renewal not "other" insur- 
ance) in Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 
A 7 ". Y. 0, 26. Disapproved (Nature of war- 
ranties in applications for fire insurance) in 
North Am. Fire Ins. v. Tfaroop, 22 Mich. 
146; s. c, 7 Am. R. 644. Collated with 
Plumb v. Cattaraugus Co. Mutual Ins. Co., 
18 A". Y. 392; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 
36 Id. 550; Van Schoick e. Niagara Fire 
Ins. Co., 68 Id. 434; Rohrback v. Germania 
Ins. Co., 02 Id. 47 ; Pindar v. Resolute Ins. 
Co., 47 N. Y. 114; Chase v. Hamilton Ins. 
Co., 20 Id. 52, and other cases (Insurer how 
far estopped to set up breach of warranty) 
ia 26 Am. R. 370, «. 

v. Cayuga & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 

12 A 7 : Y. 486. See Fletcher v. Auburn & 
Syracuse R. R. Co. ; Gardner v. Trustees 
of Newburgh. Explained and disting'd 
(Liability for nuisance) in Bellinger a. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 23 A 7 ". Y. 42, 52. Dis- 
ting'd with Wasmer v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 
80 JSf. Y. 212; Irvine v. Wood, 51 Id. 224; 
Clifford o. Dam, 81 Id. 56 ; Walsh v. Mead, 
8 Hun, 387, in Wenzlickrc. McCotter, 87 JSf. Y. 
122. Reviewed at length and questioned in 
Conhocton Stone R. «. Buffalo, N. Y. & Erie 
R. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 573, 578. Cited as au- 
thority (Distinction between maintaining 
and continuing nuisance) in Munson i>. 
People, 5 Park. 23. Applied (Liability of 
railroad company for acts creating nuisance) 
in Lowrey v. Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 
4 Abb. A. G. 32, 36. Applied in dissenting 
opinion of Dwight, C, in McCafferty v. 
Spuyten Duyvil, &c. It. R. Co., 61 A 7 ! Y. 
200. Disting'd in Corey v. Buffalo, Corning, 
&c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 490. Approved and 
followed in Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. 
Fifth Bapt. Ch., 105 U. S. 317, 333. Col- 
lated with other cases, in Mill's Thomps. on 
Highw. 3 ed. 411. Explained (Extent of 
authority given by legislature over high- 
ways) in People v. Kerr, 37 Barb. 406. 
Applied (Necessity that objection be taken 
on trial) in Pollen v. Le Roy, 10 Bosw. 56. 

v. Cherry, 59 Barb. 628. Rev'd in 57 

N. Y. (545. Previous decision in 56 Barb. 
635. Decision in 57 N. Y. disting'd (Re- 
sulting trust) in Randall v. Gonstans, 23 
Northw. Rep. 530, 534. 

v. Clark, 10 Bun, 559. Aff'd in 77 N~. Y. 

869; s. c, 1 Am. Prob. R. 510, with note. 
See Dan v. Brown. Decision in 77 N. Y. 
applied with Newton v. Seaman's Friend 
Sot, 130 Mass. 91; Matter of O'Neil, 91 
A r . Y. 523 (Effect of papers referred to in 
will) in Dyer v. Ervincr, 2 Bern. 160. See 
(Proof of will) Code Chi. Pro. 1881, § 2620, 
n. Approved (Effect of marriage in revoking 
will of married woman) in Swan v. Ham- 
mond, 1 88 Mass. 43. 

v. Clifford, 7 Lans. 46. Aff d, it seems, 

in 54 N. Y. 636, but without opinion. 
Decision in 7 Lans. followed (Disregarding 
verdict) in Carroll v. Deimel, 13 Weekly Dig. 



108 



BROWN. 



401. Followed (Adoption of special ver- 
dict) in Madison University v. White, 25 
Hun, 490, 493. 

v. Combes, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 572. 

Subsequent decision in 63 N. Y. 598. 

v. Cook, 3 E. D. Smith, 123. See Hull 

v. Carnley. Questioned and compared (Ne- 
cessity for demand of payment of chattel 
mortgage) in Wisser «. O'Brien, 35 Super. 
Ct. (J. & 8.) 151. 

v. Cromien, 50 How. Pr. 192. AfE'd in 

6 Hun, 247. See (Jurisdiction of N. Y. dis- 
trict courts over proceedings for forcible 
entry and detainer) Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2233, 
2234. 

v. Crowl, 5 Wend. 298. Disting'd 

(Right of action for false imprisonment) iu 
Van Ingen v. Snyder, 24 Hun, 81. 

v. Cmning. See Gordon «. Bowne. 

v. Curran, 14 Hun, 260. Compare to 

the contrary (Enforcing contract with third 
person) Goldenberg v. Hoffman, 69 N. Y. 
322, which afl'd 7 Hun, 324. 

v. , 53 Haw. Pr. 303. Cited (Dam- 
age arising from erection of building) in Hil- 
liard v. N. Y. & Cleveland Gas Coal Co., 13 
Weekly Law Bull. 379. 

— v. Cnrtiss, 2 N. Y. 225. See Allen v. 
Rightmere ; Herrick v. Carman ; Johnson v. 
Gilbert. Disting'd (Guaranty when not 
within statute of frauds) in Draper v. Snow, 

20 £T. Y. 338, which afl'd 6 Duer, 662, 
which see. Also disting'd in Brewster v. 
Silence, 8 K Y. 210. Examined at length 
in Durham ■». Manrow, 2 N. Y. 533. Dis- 
ting'd and questioned in Spicer *. Norton, 
13 Barb. 546. Examined, with other cases, 
in Church v. Brown, 21 W. Y. 315. Fol- 
lowed, with hesitation, in Milks, v. Rich, 80 
N. Y. 271. Followed in Cardell v. MeNiel, 

21 N. Y. 340; Lossee v. Williams, 6 Lavs. 
234; Ellcnwood v. Fults, 63 Barb. 321; 
Fowler v. Clearwater, 35 Barb. 143, 149; 
Thomas v. Murray, 32 If. Y. 615. Explained 
in Mattery v. Gillett, 21 If. Y. 423. Com- 
mented on by Strong, J.,. in Glen Cove Mut. 
Ins. Co.®. Harrold, 20 Barb. 301. Recon- 
ciled with Brewster v. Silence, 8 N. Y. 207, 
in Dauber v. Blackney, 38 Barb. 434, 436. 
Followed (Liability of guarantor of note) in 
Gallagher v. White, 31 Barb. 92, 96; Clay 
v. Edgerton, 19 Ohio St. 549; s. c, 2 
Am. It. 422, 424. Applied in Deck v. 
Works, 18 Hun, 266. Disting'd in Moore i>. 
Cross, 1 9 K Y. 230. Followed (Guarantor 
liable without demand and notice) in Mallory 
v. Grant, 4 Chand. {Wise.) 145. Applied 
(Incompetency of parol evidence to vary lia- 
bility of party to note) in Campbell v. Tate, 

7 Lans. 373. 

— v. Dean, 3 Wend. 208. Disting'd 
(Recording deeds) in Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 
Dake, 1 Abb. N. C. 381, 391. 

— v. Delaflcld, 1 Ben. 445. Overruled 
(Effect of absence of one joint-debtor in 
suspending statute of limitations) in Denny 
v. Smith, 18 K Y. 567; Cutler v. Wright, 

22 N. Y. 472, 477. Denied and Denny «. 



Smith followed in Coswell v. Elglcman, 31 
Wis. 93. 

v. Dcivey, 1 Sandf. Oil. 56. Disting'd 

(Agreement to reconvey) in Morrison v. 
Brand, 5 Daly, 40, 42. Cited (Distinction 
between absolute conveyance, and convey- 
ance as security) as containing extensive 
review of the cases, in 4 Kent Com. 143, 
n. a. 

v. Elliott, 4 Daly, 329 ; s. c, with points 

of counsel, 45 How. Pr. 182. 

T. Fargo, I N. Y. 429 ; s. c, as Fargo v. 

Brown, 3 How. Pr. 294, where the facts are 
more fully stated. 

• v. Feeter, 7 Wend. 301. See Witherby 

v. Mann. Applied (Liability for attorney's 
acts) in Croft v. King, 8 Daly, 265, 269. 
Disting'd in Clark v. Woodruff, 83 A T . Y. 
- 518, 526. 

v. Ferguson, 2 Denio, 196. See (Pay- 
ment of amount of tender into court) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 732, n. 

v. Frost, 1 Hoffm. 41. Rev'd in 10 

Paige, 243. 

v. Goodwin, 1 Abb. N. C. 452. Aft'd by 

general term and that affd in 75 N. Y. 
409. 

v. Haff. 5 Paige, 235; s. c, 28 Am. Dec. 

425, with note. Explained (Decreeing 
specific performance) in Slauson v. Wivtkins, 
86 N. Y. 597, 602. Cited and approved in 
Andrews v. Sullivan,. 2 Gilm. {Ill,) 327; 
s. c., 43 Am. Deo. 53. Limited (Right of 
vendor to make his covenant for title good 
at any time before decree) in Alvarez v. Bran- 
nan, 7 Cal. 509. 

v. Hermann, 14 Abb. Pr. 394. Referred 

to as overruled (Liability of married woman 
on personal obligations) in Tyler on Inf. & 
Cov. 2 ed. § 758; Thomas on Mort. 198. 

v. Hinchman, 9 Johns. 75. Denied 

(Proof enabling justice to issue warrant) 
in Terry v. Fargo, 10 Johns. 114; Bissell v. 
Hills, 3 Wend. 390. 

- v. Jenison, 3 Sandf. 732. Limited 

(Striking out frivolous answer on notice) in 
Hull v. Smith, 1 Duer, 649. 

v. Kimball, 25 Wend. 259. Rev'g 

Kimball v. Davis, 19 Id. 437. Decision in 
25 Wend, limited (Proof of execution of 
deed) in Northrop v. Wright, 7 Hill, 476, 493. 
See Kimball v. Brown, below. 

v. Knapp, 17 Hun, 160. Rev'd in 79 

Jf. Y. 136. See Harris v. Fir 

v. Leavitt, 31 If. Y. 113. Applied 

(Boitafide holder of note) in Day v. Saunders, 
3 Keyes, 347. Disting'd in Huff v. Wagner, 
63 Barb. 215, 234; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. 
Church, 81 If. Y. 218, 223. Included in 
1 Ames Cases on B. & N. 668. 

v. Leigh, 49 N. Y. 78 ; s. c, 12 Abb. Pr 

N. S. 193. Further decision in 50 N. T 
427; s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. H. S. 305, whicn 
was confirmed in part in 52 N. Y. 78. De- 
cision in 49 N. Y. criticised with Troy & 
Boston R. R. Co. v. Tibbitts, 11 How. Pr. 
170 (Amendment of pleadings) in Robertson 
v. Robertson, 9 Daly, 44. Approved in 



BEDWN. 



109 



Pomeroy on Rem. § 566. Explained (Action 
to determine conflicting claims to land) in 
Sedgw. & W. on Ti: of Tit. to Land, % 181. 

v. Littlefield, 7 Wend. 45-1. Afi'd in 

11 Wend. 467. 

y. Lyddy. See Peters v. Newkirk. 

T. Lynch, 2 Bradf. 214. Overruled 

(Appointment of guardian) in Code Civ. 
Pro. § 2822. 

v. , 1 Paige, 147, 158. Followed 

(Transaction ■when not usurious) in Fiedler 
v. Darrin, 59 Bart. 652. Approved and 
followed (Equitable relief against statute of 
frauds) in Ryan v. Dox, 34 JV. Y. 307. 
Disting'd in Wheeler v. Reynolds, 66 N. Y. 
239. Disting'd with Ryan v. Dox, 34 N. Y. 
307, in Bauman v. Holzhausen, 26 Hun, 505. 
Collated and compared with other cases, in 
Randall v. Constans, 23 Northw. Rep. 530, 
533. Disting'd and limited in Glass v. Hul- 
bert, 102 Mass. 24; s. c, 3 Am. R. 418, 
. 430. 

T. Lyon, 6 N". Y. 419. Applied (Rule in 

Shelley's case) in Bond o. McNiff, 38 Super. 
Ct. {J. & S.) 83, 88. 

v. McCune, 5 Sandf. 224. Referred to 

(Infant's liability for false representations) 
in Eckstein v. Prank, 1 Daly, 332, as hold- 
ing a doctrine previously repudiated in Wal- 
lace v. Morse, 5 Hit , 392, and overruled in 
this country by an overwhelming weight of 
authorities. So referred to in Tyler on Inf. 
& Cov 2 ed. § 126. Disapproved in Schune- 
rcann v. Paradise, 46 How. Pr. 426. Com- 
pared in Beuj. on Sales, 27 (Bennett's 4 
Am. ed.). 
- — T. Mclntyre, 43 Barb. 344. Explained 
(Malicious prosecution) in Moak's UnderhiWs 
Torts, 1 Am. ed. 95. 

y. McKee, 57 N. Y. 684. Collated 

with other cases (Covenants running with 
land), in MeAdam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 
86. Explained and disting'd (Liability of 
grantee to contribute towards construction 
of party-wall) in Scott v. McMillan, 76 N. Y. 
, 141, i44. 

v. Marrigoltl, 50 How. Pr. 248. See 

Trolan v. Pagan. Not followed (Admission 
of service of summons) in Peck v. Richard- 
son, 9 Hun, 567. 

y. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592; s: c, 41 Am. 

Dec. 771, with note ; 16 K Y. Com. L. 
Law. ed. 409, with brief note, of other 
cases. See Brownell v. Flagler ; Hartfield v. 
Roper. Dissented from (Extent of infantile 
responsibility) in Rauch v. Lloyd, 31 Penn. 
358, 370. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 1 Hun, 30; s. c, 

3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 155. Rev'd in 03 N. 
Y. 239. Compare, to the contrary, 3 Hun, 
685; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 104. 
Further proceedings in 9 Hun, 587; 11 Id. 
21. Decision in 11 Hun followed (Equit- 
able lien in favor of attorney) in Williams v. 
Ingersoll, 23 Hun, 285. 

y. ; 55 How. Pr. 8. Further decision 

in Id. 11. 
— — V. , 5 Daly, 481. Aff'd in 06 K Y. 



385. See Jarvis v. Driggs. Decision in 6(5 
N. Y. disting'd (Effect of judgment of dis- 
possession) in Jarvis v. Driggs, 69 N. Y. 
143. Followed (Effect of adjudication on 
default) in Blair v. Bartlett, 75 II. Y. 153; 
s. c, 31 Am. R. 455. 

r. Merser, 37 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) £65. 

Followed (Trade-mark) in Electro-Silicon 
Co. i>. Trask, 59 How. Pr. 189, 192. 

v. Montgomery, 20 N. Y. 287. Applied 

(Evidence of insolvency of maker of 
note, &c.) in Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 
22, 32. Limited and disting'd (Duty of 
vendor of worthless negotiable paper) iu 
Peoples' B'k of City of N. Y. ». Bogart, 81 
II. Y. 101, 109.. 

y. Mott, 7 Johns. 361. See Murray v. 

Judah. Explained (Liability of accommoda- 
tion indorser) in Chester v. Dorr, 41 N. Y. 
279. Disting'd in Daniel v. McRae, 2 
Hawks (N. C.) 590; s. c, 11 Am. Dec 787, 
with note. Criticised and explained in 
Pitkin v. Flanagan, 23 Vt. 160; s. c, 56 
Am. Dee. 61. 

v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 

385. Aff d in 32 N. Y. 597. See Button 
■o. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Matteson v. N. 
Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Weed v. Panama R. R. 
Co. Contrary to decision in 31 Barb. (Im- 
puting negligence of driver, &c. to passenger) 
see Knapp -o. Dagg, 18 How. Pr. 165; Cole- 
grove v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 
382; Chapman v. New Haven R. R. Co., 19 
N. Y. 341 ; Lannen o. Albany Gas Light 
Co., 46 Barb. 264. Decision in 32 N. Y. 
thought in Beck v. East River Ferry Co., 6 
Robt. 82, to greatly shake, if it does not over- 
rule the doctrine apparently laid down, in 
Colegrove v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 
20 IT. Y. 492 ; Chapman v. New Haven R. R. 
Co., 19 JST. Y. 341. To same effect, Mooney 
v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Robt. 548. 
Limited in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. 
R. R. Co., 66 If.Y. 14, which aff'd 65 Barb. 
151, which see. Criticised in Arctic Fire 
liis. Co. v. Austin, 3 Hun, 198; Perry v. 
Lansing, 17 Id. 37. Cited, with other cases, 
in 13 Am. L. Reg. N~. S. 47. Explained in 
Webster v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 38 21. Y. 
260, as not deciding question of imputed 
negligence. Approved (Negligence of rail- 
road company in dividing trains while cros- 
sing a highway) in Butler ■». Milwaukee, 
&c. R. R. Co., 28 Wis. 487. Followed 
(Negligence in crossing railroad track) in 
Ernst «. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 
9, 37: Stillwell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 
34 N. Y. 29. Disting'd in Wilcox v. Rome, 
Watertown, &c. R. R. Co., 39 K Y. 361. 
Discussed with Stillwell v. N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co., 34 H. F. 29 ; Ernst v. Hudson River 
R. R Co., 35 Id. 9; 39 Id. 01; Wilcox 
v. Rome, W., &&■ R. R. Co., Id. 358, and the 
latter considered as stating the law as finally 
settled in N. Y., — in Ormsbee v. Boston & 
Prov. R. R. Co., 14 R. I. 102. Reviewed 
(Actions for joint negligence) in 20 Alb. L. 
J. 184. Decision in 31 Barb, discussed and 



110 



BEOWN. 



compared (Joint negligence) in 4 Am. L. 
Reg. N. S. 25. 

v. , 34 JV. Y. 404. Collated with 

other cases (Duty of carrier to adopt im- 
provements contributing to passenger's 
safety) in 2 Redf. Am. Railw. Cases, 437. 
Held, not applicable to case of injuries to 
passersby, in Beisiegel v. N. Y. Central R. 
K. Co., 40 JV. F 9. 

T. , 44 JT. Y. 79. Quoted (Forma- 
tion of contract — mutual assent) in 1 Ben}, 
on Sales, § 38, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed,). 

T. Nichols, 42 JV. Y. 26. Explained and 

limited (Impeaching judgment for want of 
process) in Sperry v. Reynolds, 65 JV Y. 
186. Applied in Diossy v. West, 8 Daly, 
298. Disting'd in Ferguson v. Crawford, 
17 JV F 253, 255, which rev'd 7 Sun, 
25, which see. Disting'd (Effect of un- 
authorized appearance) in Howard v. Smith, 
33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 124; Ormsby «. 
Jaques, 12 Sun, 443. Explained in Northrup 
■o. Wheeler, 43 Sow. Pr. 122. Followed in 
Powers v. Trenor, 3 Sun, 5. Remarks of 
Grovbk, J., disapproved (Lien on estate of 
deceased judgment debtor) in Smith ». Ed- 
wards, 23 Sun, 229. 

v. Orvis, 6 Sow. Pr. 376. See Graham 

v. Stone. Overruled (Statement of mitigat- 
ing circumstances in action for libel or 
slander) in Bush v. Prosser, 11 JV. Y. 347. 
See to the contrary Heaton v. Wright, 10 
Sow. Pr. 79. Approved in Maretzek v. 
Cauldwell, 2 Rdbt. 715. See as to plead- 
ings in action for libel, Buddington v. 
Davis, 6 Sow. Pr. 401. 

T. Penfield, 24 Sow. Pr. 64. Aff'd in 

36 JT. F. 473. See Gage v. Kendall. 
Decision in 36 If. Y. disting'd (Actions by 
parties not in interest) in Eaton v. Alger, 
57 Barb. 179. Approved in Sanford v. San- 
ford, 45 JV F. 727. Disting'd in Hays v. 
Hathorn, 74 JV Y. 486. 

T. Pentz, 1 Abo. Ct. App. See. 227; 

s. a, 11 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 24. Disting'd (En- 
forcing agreement to build party-wall against 
grantee) in Scott v. McMillan, 76 JV.F. 141, 
144. Compare Cole v. Hughes, 54 "JV Y. 
444. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 226. 

v. People. 8 Bun, 562. Aff'd as People 

v. Brown, in 72 JSF.Y. 571; s. c, 28 Am. R. 
183. Decision in 75 JV Y. followed (Im- 
prisonment in county other than that of 
conviction) in People ». Lincoln, 62 Sow. 
Pr. 412, 414. 

v. Post, 1 Sun, 303. Affd, it seems, 

in 62 JV Y. 651, but without opinion. 

v. Richardson, 1 Bosw. 402. Rev'd, on 

the ground that the witness was improperly 
excluded ; but. it seems, approved as to the 
other points, in 20 JV. Y. 472. 

v. , 4 Robt. 603. Subsequent decis- 
ion in 7 Id. 57. 

v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co., 34 Super. Ct. 

(J. & S.) 231. Affd in 61 JV Y. 332. 

■ v. Salisbury, 9 Barb. 571. Disapproved 

(What passes title) in Halterline v. Rice, 62 
Barb. 593, 600. 



v. Scofleld, 8 Barb. 239. Cited with 

People ». Canal Appraisers, 33 If. Y. 401 
(Judicial notice as to what are navigable 
streams) in Shaw v. Oswego Iron Co., 10 
Oreg. 371; s. a, 45 Am. R. 146. 

v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95. See Baker v. 

Wheeler. Criticised with Bakers. Wheeler, 
8 Wend. 505 (Damages in trover) in Moody 
*. Whitney, b8 Me. 174; but Wood v. More- 
wood, 3 Adol. & Ellis, JV. S. 440, is referred 
to in Cushing v. Longfellow, 26 Me. 306, as 
seeming to be in conflict with decisions in 
N. Y. on this subject. 

v. Sigonrney. See Pennie v. Conti- 
nental Life Ins. Co. 

v. Smith, 24 Barb. 419. See Vail v. 

Owen. Followed (Office of assessor when 
judicial) in Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 If. Y. 
243. 

v. , 13 Sun, 408. Aff'd, it seems, 

in 80 If. Y. 650, but without opinion. 

v. Snell, 57 N. Y. 286. See Salisbury, 

v. Van Hoesen. Applied (Action on 
guardian's bond without accounting) in 
Girvin v. Hickman, 21 Sun, 316, 318. Ap- 
proved in Behrens v. Rodenburg, 1 City 
Ct. 96. 

■ v. Thinner, 77 JV. F. 613. Opinion re- 
ported in 58 Sow. Pr. 95. 

v. Town of Canton, 4 Lans. 409. Rev'd 

in 49 JV. Y. 662, but without opinion. 
Decision in 49 If. Y. disting'd (Right of 
father to bounties earned by minor son) in 
Matter of Wasser, 18 Weekly Dig. 188. 

v. Treat, 1 Sill, 225. Said in Bates v. 

Reynolds, 7 Bosw. 685, 690, to be still an 
authority (Effect of electing to sue in tort 
on right to arrest) notwithstanding qulifica- 
tions expressed in Suydam v. Smith,' 7 Hill, 
182; McDnffie v. Beddoe, Id. 578. Com- 
pare, however, Miller v. Scherder, 2 JV. F. 
267; McGovem ti, Payn, 32 Barb. 83, 91. 
Referred to as authority in Smith v. Knapp, 
30 JV. F 581. Explained in Hays «. Jones, 
1 Edm. 11. Disting'd (Requiring stipulation 
not to sue) in Faulkner v. Morey, 22 Hlin, 
379, 385. 

v. Volkening, 64 If. Y. 76. Explained 

(Who bound by judgment of foreclosure) in 
Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 137. Applied 
(Possession, when constructive notice) in 
Pope v. Allen, 90 If. Y. 298. Disting'd in 
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. If. C. 
381, 391. 

v. Webber, 24 Sow. Pr. 308. Affd in 

38 JV. F. 187. See Leonard v. Vredenbcrgh. 
Decision in 38 If. Y. disting'd with Watt t>. 
Rogers, 2 Abb. Pr. 261 ;' People ex rel. Tay- 
lor v. Brennan, 39 Barb. 522; Sinclair v. 
Tallmadge, 35 Id. 602 (Effect of failure to 
perform executory contract) in Innessfl. Wil- 
lis, 48 Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 188. Followed 
(Promise to pay debt of another) in Raw- 
son v. Springstern, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
416; Duffy v. Wunsch, 42 JV. F. 245. Dis- 
ting'd in Prime «. Koehler, 7 Daly, 345, 
352. Applied in Kessler «. Sonneborn, 10 
Daly, 383; Wcyer ». Beach, U Sun, 237. 



BROWN— BRUCE. 



Ill 



t. Wilde. See Fowler v. Hait. 

Brown's Water Furnace Co. v. French, 34 

How. Pr. 94. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 196 to 

have been aff'd by Ct. of App. in Jan. 

1871. 
Browne v. Bradley, 5 Abb. Pr. 141. Dis- 

ting'd (Annexing debtor's affidavit to petition 
. for his discharge) in Richmond v. Praim, 24 
• Hun, 578. 
v. Scofleld, 8 Barb. 239. See Morgan 

v. King. Approved (Common law in this 

country) in People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 

If. T. 461. 

t. Robinson, 2 Gai. Gas. 341; s. c, 2 

N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 842, with brief note. 

v. Witt, 19 Wend. 475. Approved with 

- Woodward v. Murray, 18 Johns. 400 (House- 
holder) in Nelson ». State, 57 Miss. 286; 
s. c, 34 Am. R. 444. 

Brownell v. Akin, 6 Hun, 378. Appeal dis- 
missed, it seems, in 66 If. Y. 617, but with- 
out opinion. See Everts v. Everts. Applied 
(Executor's liability for his debt to the estate) 
in Baucus v. Stover, 24 Hun, 109, 11 2. See 
(Ne exeat) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 548, re. 

v. Brownell, 19 Wend. -397. Doubted 

(Maintenance of action for partition by 
remainder-man not in actual possession) in 
Sullivan «. Sullivan, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (_T.SC.) 
443 ; s. c, 4 Hun, 198. 

— r- v. Curtis, 10 Paige, 210. See Bayard 
v. Hoffman; Osborne v. Moss- Quoted 
(Creditor's actions — answer) in Wait on 
Fraud. Coma. § 161. 

v. Flagler, 5 Hill, 282. See Owen v. 

Hudson River R. R. Co. Followed with 
Brown «. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 (Recovery 
notwithstanding negligence) in Trow v. 
Vt. Cent. R. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487; s. c, 51 
Am. Dec. 191, with note. Followed in 
Wright v. Brown, 4 Ind. 95 ; s. c, 58 Am. 
Dec. 622. 

v. McEwen, 5 Den. 367. See Foster v. 

Scoffield; Oillet v. Mead. Followed (In- 
admissibility of evidence of promise to 
marry, in action for seduction) in Whitney 
v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250. Relied on (Testi- 
mony of jurors as to motives, &c.) in Wood- 
ward ». Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453; s. c, 9 
Am. R. 49, 60, and thought to limit Dana v. 
Tucker, 4 Johns. 487, which is considered 
hardly reconcilable with later cases in 
Massachusetts and England. 

v. Winnie, 29 If. Y. 400. Sec Card v. 

Miller; Chappel v. Spencer; Muir v. De- 
maree. Followed (Material alteration in 
note) in Card v. Miller, 1 Hun, 504, 500. * 

Browning v. Abrams. See Williams v. 
Bacon. 

v. Bettis, 8 Paige, 568. Examined 

(Limits of examination on creditor's bill) in 
Howard e. Palmer, Walk. Ch. 392. Com- 
pare (Reaching moneys earned, but not clue, 
by creditor's bill) note to Donovan v. Finn, 
14 Am. Dec. 531; Tolles v. Wood, 16 Abb. 
N. C. 1. 

v. Hanford, 5 Hill, 588 ; s. c, 40 Am. 

Dec. 369, with note. Rev'd in 5 Den. 586. 



Reversal said to settle nothing as to the 
sheriff's liability in Moore v. Westcrvelt, 21 
2f. Y. 103, 107. Decision in 5 Hill approved 
(Duties and liabilities of sheriff in levying 
execution) in Lawson v. State, 10 Arh. 28; 
s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 238, with note. Contrary 
to 5 Den. 586 see (Return, as evidence) 
Freeman on Ex. % 366. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 
200. 

y. Home Ins. Co., 6 Daly, 522. Affd 

in 71 K Y. 508; s. c, 27 Am. R. 86. 
Decision in 71 If. Y. followed ("Dwelling- 
house" not necessarily "occupied") in 
Woodruff v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 83 If. 
Y. 133, 140. Collated, with other cases 
( Waiver and estoppel as applied to insurance) 
in 15 Am. L. Rev. 769. 

v. Marvin, 5 Abb. N. O. 285. Another 

proceeding iu 22 Htm, 547. Decision in 
22 Hun, collated, with numerous othei 
cases (Settlement of debts, as affected by 
partnership relation) in 20 Am. L. Reg. If. 
S. 465, 469. 

v. Wheeler, 24 Wend. 258. See Howard 

i). Sexton. Approved with Diedrick v. 
Richley, 2 Hill. 271 (Effect of statutes 
providing for arbitration) in Burnside v. 
Whitney, 21 If. Y. 148. Approved with 
Kelsey v. Darrow, 22 Hun, 125, under a 
similar statute (Waiver of arbiter's oath) in 
Broadstreet v. Pross, Hamilton Co. 0. Dist. 
Ct., lei. 1884, WWeeklyL. Bui. 117,119. 

Brownson v. Gifford, 8 How. Pr. 389. See 
Van Buren v. Cockburn. Approved (Joinder 
of husband with wife) in Ackley v. Tarbox, 
29 Barb. 512. Overruled (Demurrer for 
defect of parties) in Palmer v. Davis, 28 
If. Y. 242. 

Bruce v. Burt, 5 Daly, 510. Aff'd in 67 
If. Y. 237. See Cardell v. McNeil ; Milks v. 
Rich. Decision in 67 If. Y. disting'd 
(Parol guaranty by one transferring note) 
in Milks v. Rich, 80 If. Y. 271. Explained 
(Inconsistent pleadings) in Hooker v. Greene, 
50 Wis. 278. Collated, with contrary cases, 
in Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co. v. Warren, 
6 Pac. Rep. 726. Compare Code Civ. Pro. 
§507. 

v. Carter, 7 Daly. 37. Affd in 72 If. Y. 

616. 

v. Davenport, 36 Barl. 349. Rev'd in 

3 Eeyes, 472; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. If. S. 185; 
1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 233. 

v. Fulton Nat. Bk., 16 Hun, 615. Aft'd 

in 79 If. Y. 154; s. c, 35' Am. R. 505. For 
" lessee " at end of line ten of syllabus in 79 
N. Y. 154 read "lessor." 

v. Griscom. 9 Hun, 280. Affd, it 

seems, in 70 If. Y. 012, but without opinion. 

v. Kelly, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 27. 

Further decisions in 5 Hun, 229; 2 Abb. 
If. C. 8.1. 

v. Lee. See Callagan ». Ilallett. 

v. Lytle, 13 Barl. 163. Explained 

(Accommodation indorser — presentment for 
payment —notice of dishonor — waiver) in 1 
Pars. On Contr. 271, n. j. 

v. Pearson. See Trevor v. AVood. 



112 



BEUCE— BRYAN 



t. Tilson, 25 If. Y. 194. See TVcn- 

man v. Mohawk Ins. Co. Applied (Eight 
to specific performance without previous 
request or demand) in Freeson v. Bissell, 
63 K Y. 168. 

v. Westcott, 3 Barb. 374. Approved 

(Material alteration of note) in State v. Strat- 
ton, 27 Iowa, 420; s. c, 1 Am. R. 282; 
Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427; s. c, 7 
Am. R. 661, 668. Cited in Toomer ». Rut- 
land, 57 Ala. 379; s. c, 29 Am. R. 722. 

v. Wright, 3 Hun, 548; s. c, reported 

fully, 5 Sup'm. Ct. {T. & C.) 81. To the 
contrary see (Indorser and indorsee) 1 Dan. 
on Neg. Inst. 532. But see Abb. Tr. Ev. 
414. 

Union y. Bokee, 4 Den. 57. See (Commence- 
ment of action) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 398, 
n. 

v. Marqnand, 17 Johns. 58; s. c, 6 If. 

Y. Com. L. Law. ed. JJ86, with brief note. 
Approved and followed (Indorser when not 
released by discharge of maker of note) 
in Ludwig v. Iglehart, 43 Md. 39. 

Bruff v. Mali, 36 If. Y. 200. See N. T. & 
New Haven R. R. Co. v. Schuyler. Applied 
(Remedy for fraud) in Eaton, Cole & Burn- 
ham Co. v. Avery, 83 If. Y. 34. Explained 
(Sales — fraud) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 646, n. 
12 (Corbin's 4 Am. Ed.) 

Brumley v. Fanning, 1 Johns. Ch. 501. Cited 
as authority (Enjoining waste of mortgaged 
premises) in Thomas on Mort. 53. 

Brnmly v. Westchester County Man'f. So- 
ciety, 1 Johns. Ch. 366. Followed (Com- 
pelling corporation to testify) in Knox v. Pro- 
tection Ins. Co., 9 Conn. 430 ; s. c, 25 Am. 
Dec. 33, with note. Noted (Private cor- 
porations, process, pleadings, &c.) in Ang. 
& A. on Corp. § 675, 11 ed. 

Brnmmer y. Cohen, 57 How. Pr. 386; s. c, 
6 Abb. If. G. 409. Aff d in 58 How. Pr. 
239 ; s. c, 9 Daly, 36, which was aft" d in 
86 N. Y. 11; s. c, 62 How. Pr. 171; 40 
Am. R. 503. See Barry v. Equitable Life 
Ins. Co. Decision in 58 How. Pr. followed 
(Non-assignability of policy payable to 
-wife) in De Jonge v. Goldsmith, 46 Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 131. Decision in 86 If. Y. 
disting'd in Living v. Domett, 13 Weekly 
Dig. 462. 

Brmnskill t. James, 11 N. Y. 294. Disting'd 
(Judgment against joint debtors) in Mann 
v. Marsh, 35 Barb. 68. Followed in Mc- 
Guire v. Johnson, 2 Lans. 305. Compare 
McKensie v. Farrell, 4 Bono. 192, 200. 
Applied in Stimson v. Van Pelt, 66 Barb. 
151, 154, as not limited to case of husband 
and wife. 

Brundago v. Brnndage, 1 Sup 1 ™. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 82; s. c, 65 Barb. 397. Affd in 60 If. 
Y. 544. Set Jones v. Terre Haute & Rich- 
mond R. R. Co. Decision in 60 If. Y. ex- 
plained (Private Corporation — transfer of 
stock) in Ang. & A. on Corp. § 557, n. a, 1 1 
ed. . 

Briuiucr v. Meigs, 6 Hun, 203. AffVl in 64 
N. Y. 506. Decision in 04 If. Y. followed 



(Descent on death of cestui que trust) in Sige 
v. Lockman, 53 How. Pr. 276. See Em- 
bury v. Sheldon, 2 Abb. If. C. 404, n. 
Brush v. Holland, 3 Brad/. 240. Disting'd 
(Admissibility of declarations of legatee to 
prove undue influence upon testator) in La 
Bau v. Vanderbilt, 3 Red/. 405. Disting'd 
(Executor propounding will, as party to 
probate proceedings) in Whelpley «. Loder, 
1 Dem. 368. 

1. Kohn, 14 Abb. Pr. 51. Affd in 9 

Bosw. 589. 

v. Lee, 6 Abb. Pr. If. S. 50. Other pro- 
ceeding in 18 Abb. Pr. 398, and that rev'd 
in 36 If. Y. 49. Decision in 6 Abb. Pr. 
If. S. re-asserted (Interrogatories upon pro- 
ceedings to punish for contempt by order 
to show cause) in Pitt v. Davison, 37 If. Y. 
235. Decision in 18 Abb. Pr. criticised 
(Who may issue execution on district court 
judgment) in McDonald v. Flynn, 2 Daly, 
42, as decided without reference to Ginochio 
v. Figari, 2 Abb. Pr. 185. Decision in 36 
If. Y. superseded by 2 L. 1870, c. 741, § 3, 
giving the clerk exclusive power. See Code 
Civ.Pro. 1881, § 3017, n. 

v. Beeves, 3 Johns. 439 ; s. c, 3 If. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 661, with brief note of 
supporting cases. Applied with Dean v. 
Hail, 17 Wend. 214 (Who may sue on nego- 
tiable securitv) in Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 
U. S. 334, 346. 

v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. .506. See 

Packard v. Hill; Sherry v. Lozier. Cited 
(Revocation of will by marriage, &c.) as 
giving the general rule in Re fuller, 79 111. 
99; s. c, 22 Am. R. 164. Commented 
upon in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and T. ed. 
274, n. 5. Collated with other cases in 2 
Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 524. Dis- 
cussed in 4 Kent Com'. 523. 

Biust v. Barrett, 16 Hun, 409. Affd as 
Brush v. Barrett, 82 If. Y. 400 ; s. c, 37 
Am. R. 569. See (Limitations — demand) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 410, n. 

Bruyn v. Comstock, 56 Barb. 9. Collated 
with other cases (Running of statute of limi- 
tations against attorney's claim) in 26 Moalt 
Eng. 326, n. . 

Bryan v Baldwin, 7 Lans. 174. Aff'd in 52 
If. Y. 232. 

v. Brennon, 7 How. Pr. 359. Dis- 
approved (Right to appeal from order of 
reference) in Brown v. Harper, 54 Iowa,- 
546. 

v. Butts, 27 Barb. 503. Followed 

(Effect of affidavits of foreclosure sale) in 
Mowry v. Sanborn, 7 Hun, 380, 384, which 
was however rev'd in 68 If. Y. 153. See 
also, to the contrary a further decision in 
Mowry v. Sanborn, 72 If. Y. 534. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881,, §2400, n. Quoted 
(Mortgagee's interest until foreclosure) in 2 
Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 102. 

t. Knickcibacker, . 1 Barb. Ch. 409. 

Applied (Accumulated income from trust 
fund) in Ellingwood v. Bcare, 59 How. Pr. 
50o, 506. 



BRYANT- BUCKLEY. 



113 



Bryant v. American Telegraph Co., 1 Daly, 
575. See De Rutte «. N. Y., Albany, &c. 
Tel. Co.; Leonard v. N. Y., Albany, &c. 
Tel. Co. Applied (Carrier's liability for 
delay) in Grindle «. Eastern Express Co., 
67 Me. 317; s. c, 24 Am. R. 81. Explained 
(Liability for delay in transmitting message) 
in 2 Pars, on Contr. 257, o, n. v. Collated, 
with other cases, in 9 Am. R. 149, n. 

.- — v. Bryant,, 4 Alb. Pr. JST. S. 138. Dis- 
ting'd (Amendment to perfect appeal) in 
Zinsser v. Seiler, 7 Daly, 464. 

v. Poughkeepsie Mutual Ins. Co., 21 

Barb. 154. Affd in 17 JV. T. 200. See 
Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. 

Bryce v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 35 Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 394. Affd in 55 N~. Y. 240; 
s. c, 14 Am. P. 249. See Boynton v. 
Clinton & Essex Mut. Ins. Co. 

Bnchan r. Rintoul, 10 Han, 183. Affd in 
70 K Y. 1. Opinion of Surrogate is 
reported as Matter of Ritch, 2 Red/. 330. 

v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 165; s. c, 47 

Am. Dee. 305, with note. See Buckley v. 
Buckley. Approved as settled law (Real 
estate purchased with partnership funds) in 
Collumbo. Read, 24 XT. Y. 505, 512; Buck- 
leys. Buckley, 11 Barb. 74. .Examined, with 
other cases, in Sage v. Sherman, 2 If. Y. 428. 
Re-afl'd in Fairchild v. Fairohild, 64 If. Y. 
478. Followed, with approval, in Lang's 
Heirs ». Waring, 25 Ala. 625 ; s. c, 60 
Am. Dee. 533, with note. Cited in Foster's 
Appeal, 74 Penn. St. 391 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 
553, as containing a learned and exhaustive 
opinion. Cited as reviewing several leading 
cases in 1 Pars, on Contr. 150, n. h. Re- 
viewed and explained (Respective rights of 
partnership and individual creditors) in Mar- 
tin v. Wagoner, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & O.) 515. 
Applied (Effect of judgment lien) in Sie- 
man v. Austin, 33 Barb. 9. Disting'd and 
questioned in King v. Harris, 34 If. Y. 330. 
Disting'd (Record or registry when sub- 
stantially defective or irregular) in Mut. 
Life Ins. Co. v. Dake, 1 Abb. JK G. 381, 
391. Applied and disting'd (Subordination 
of judgment lien to equitable liens) in 
Wilkes v. Harper, 2 Barb. Ch. 354. Applied 
in O'DonneK v. Kerr, 50 How. Pr. 334. 
Followed (Effect of amendment of docket of 
judgment) in Sears v. Mack, 2 Bradf. 409. 
Explained (Equitable relief against mistake) 
in Hall v. Fisher, 9 Barb. 28. Applied 
(Judgment lien when created) in Blyden- 
burgh v. Northrop, 13 How. Pr. 289. 

Buchanan y. Comstock, 57 Barb. 568. 
Modification of final judgment by Ct. of 
App. in June, 1871, was on other ques- 
tions. Disting'd (Supplemental complaint) 
in Prouty v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. Co., 
85 If. Y. 272, 275. 

v. Curry, 19 Johns. 137. See Clarke 

v. Morey. Applied (Contract, when not 
dissolved by war) in Kiersted v. Orange & 
Alexandria R. R. Co., 54 Mow. Pr. 45; 
O'Rcily v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2 Abb. Pr. 
JST. S. 174; Sands v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 50 

I.— 8 



If. Y. 026; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. 
Hillyard, 8 Vroom (If. J.) 444; a. c, 18 
Am R. 741, 748. Limited (Submission of 
partnership controversy by one partner) in 
Harrington v. Higham, 13 Barb. 662. 
Applied in McBride v. Hagan, 1 Wend. 836. 

v. Exchange Ins. Co., 01 If. Y. 26. 

See Harper <o. Albany Mut. Ins. Co. Com- 
pare (Petroleum) Bennett v. North British, 
&c. Ins. Co. of London, 8 Daly, 471. 

v. Morrell, 13 How. Pr. 296. Said in 

Coates c Goddard, 34 Super. Gt. (/. & S.) 
126, to have been superseded (Extra allow- 
ance) by Gods Pro. § 309, as amended in 
1865. 

v. Ocean Ins. Co. See Juhel v. Church. 

Buck v. Aniidon, 4 Daly, 126; s. c, 41 
How. Pr. 370. Compare (Who chargeable 

* for medical services) Crane v. Baudoine, 0-3 
Barb. 2G0. Cited (Agent, when not person- 
ally liable) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 503. 

r v. Burlt, 18 N. Y. 337. Quoted and 

discussed (Contract — demand and tender) in 
2 Chitty on Contr. 1207, n. d, 11 Am. ed. 

Buckbce y. Brown, 21 Wend. 110. See 
People v. Corpn. «of Albany. Explained 
(Statute of Frauds — note or memorandum in 
writing) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 241, n. 39 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. United States Ins. Co., 18 Barb. 

541. See Viall v. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. 
Cited (Punctuality in payment of premium) 
in Mayer v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 38 Iowa, 
304; s. c, 18 Am. R. 34. Followed with 
Goit v. Nat. Prot. Ins. Co., 25 Barb. 189, in 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. French, 30 Ohio St. 
240; s. c, 27 Am. R. 443, 448. Disting'd 
in Tait «. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 1 Flipp. 
( U. S.) 330. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 
486, n. o. 

Buckley y. Bentley, 42 Barb. 646. Further 
decision in 48 Barb. 283. Decision in 42 
Barb, explained (Waiver of demand and 
notice) and cases collated in Bigel. on B. & 
N. 2 ed. 381. Decision in 48 Barb, relied 
on (Changing effect of written contract by 
parol evidence) in Pohalski v. Mutual Life 
Ins. Co., 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 234. 

; v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 43. See Cresson 

v. Stout. Collated with Buchan v. Sumner, 
2 Barb. Ch. 165, and other cases (Rights 
affecting partnership realty) in Story on 
Partn. 7 ed. § 94, n. Cited with Kendall v. 
Rider, 35 Barb. 100 ; Fairchild v. Fairchild, 
04 i\T. Y. 471 ; Chester v. Dickinson, 54 Id. 
1 ; Van Brunt v. Applegate, 44 Id. 544 ; 
Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. 513 ; Clement 
«. Brush, 3 Johns. Gas. 180 ; McBride v. 
Hagan, 1 Wend. 326: in Batty v. Adams Co., 
10 Neb. 50. 

v. Furniss, 15 Wend. 137. Aff'd in 17 

Id. 504. See Covell v. Hitchcock. Fol- 
lowed (Stoppage in transitu) in Ruckcr v. 
Donovan, 13 Kan. 251; s. c, 19 Am. R. 84, 
with note, collating cases. Approved and 
relied on in Chandler b. Fulton, 10 Tex. 2; 
s. c, 00 Am. Dee. 188, with note. Explained 
in 1 Chitty on Contr. 600, n. x, 11 Am. ed. 



114 



BUCKLEY— BUFFALO CITY CEMETAKY. 



Illustrated, with other cases, in 2 Redf. 
Am. Sailw. Gas. 374. 

v. Leonard, 4 Den. 500. Followed 

(Evidence of character of dog) in Mann v. 
Weiand, 81 X Pa- St. 255; Goode v. Martin, 
57 Md. 606 ; s. c, 40 Am. R. 448. 

t. Wells, 33 N. Y. 518. Rev'g 42 Barb. 

569. Decision in 33 N. Y. followed (Right 
of wife to profits of business carried on by 
husband) with Gage v. Dauchy, 34 Id. 293, 
i in Merchant v. Bunnel, 3 Keyes, 539; 
Kluender v. Lynch, 4 Id. 361. 

Bucklin v. Bucklin, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 
242. Followed with Emerson «. Bleakly, 5 
Abb. Pr. JST. S. 350 (Vesting of trusts 
on death of trustee) in Matter of Howell, 
61 Sow. Pr. 179. Limited (Evidence to 
vary consideration) in Anthony v. Harrison, 

14 Sun, 198, 214. Explained (Mortgag'e 
between parent and child) in 2 Washb. on 
Seal Prop. 4 ed. 49. 

v. Ford, 5 Barb. 393. Compare (Limita- 
tion where action arises between death and 
granting letters) Code Civ. Pro. § 392. 

Buckmau v. Brett, 35 Barb. 596 ; s. c, more 
fully, 13 Abb. Pr. 110 ; 22 How. Pr. 233. 
Collated with other cases (Joinder of parties 
plaintiff in actions by part owners of vessel) 
in Story on Partn. (7 ed.) § 454, n. 

v. Carnley, 9 How. Pr. 180. See (Rights 

of sheriff, when liable as bail) Sartos v. Mer- 
ceques, Id. 188; Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 595, n. 

Buckmaster v. Consumer's Ice Co. , 5 Daly, 
313. Explained (Sales void for uncertainty) 
in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 51, n. 17 (Corbin's 4 
Am. ed.). 

Budd v. Bingham, 18 Barb. 494. Discussed 
(Ejectment — description of lands) in Sedgw. 
& W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 463. 

v. Walker, 9 Barb. 493. Explained 

(Ejectment — mesne profits — statute of limita- 
tions) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, 
§ 686. 

Buddenberg v. Benner, 1 Silt. 84. Applied 
(Liability of boardinghouse-keeper) in Smith 
v. Read, 6 Daly, 33, 37. 

Buel v. Boughton, 2 Den. 91. Cited (Nature 
of action for money had and received) in 
Long «. Bussell, 45 Super. Ct. (J. <££) 434. 

— ■ — v. Dewey. See Larkin v.- Robbins. 

v. Gordon, 6 Johns. 126. Followed with 

Mechanics' & F. B'k of Albany v. Capron, 

15 Id. 467 ; Frost v. Carter, 1 Johns. Gas. 
73; 2 Cai. Gas. 310; Ford v. Andrews, 9 
Wend. 312; Andrus v. Waring, 20 Johns. 
153 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 693, with note 
(Effect of discharge in bankruptcy in barr- 
ing action by surety) in Poguo o. Joyner, 6 
Ark. 241. 

v. People, 18 Sun, 487. AfFd in 78 

N. Y. 492; s. c, 34 Am. R. 555. See 
People v. Butler. Decision in 18 Sun, fol- 
lowed (Committing murder in perpetration 
of another offense) in Cox v. People, 80 N. 
Y. 515. Decision in 78 R. Y. relied on in 
State ii. Wells, 61 Iowa, 629 ; s. c, 47 Am. 
R. 822. ' 



Buell v. Trustees of Lockport, 11 Barb. 502. 
Aff'd in 8 S. Y. 55. Decision in 8 N. Y. 
followed (Effect of reversal by Court of 
Appeals) in Mayor, &c. v. Ryan 7 Daly, 
436. Disting'd (Impeaching proceedings 
taken to open street) in Matter of Buffalo, 
78 K Y. 362, 368. 

Bness v. Koch, 52 Sow. Pr. 478. Aff'd in 53 
Sow. Pr. 92 ; mem. of s. c. in 10 Sun, 299. 

Buffalo v. Holloway. See City of Buffalo v. 
Holloway. 

Buffalo & Alleghany R. K. Co. v. Cary, 26 
JV. Y. 77. Disting'd (Questioning organiza- 
tion of corporation) in Kaiser v. Lawrence 
Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa, 104; s. c, 41 Am. R. 
85. Approved in Swartwout v. Michigan, 
&c. R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, 395. 

Buffalo & Hamburgh Turnpike Co. v. City 
of Buffalo, 1 Sup'm, Gt. (T. & G.) 537. 
AfTd in 58 N. Y. 639. 

Buffalo & Jamestown R. B. Co., Matter of, 

5 Sun, 485. Disting'd (Effect of Art. 8, § 
11 of Const, on acts relating to town bonds) 
in Ilorton v. Town of Thompson, 7 Sun, ' 
432. 

Buffalo & Jamestown B. R. Co. v. Jndson, 
reported as Falconer v. Buffalo & James- 
town R. R. Co. 

v. Weeks, reported as Falconer®. Buffalo 

6 Jamestown R. R. Co. 

Buffalo & N. Y. City R. B. Co. v. Dudley, 
14 S. Y. 336. Followed (Liability on stock 
subscription) in Whitehall, &c. R. R. Co. v. 
Myers, 16 Abb. Pr. JT. S. 37. Applied in 
Buffalo & Jamestown R. R. Co. o. Clark, 22 
Sun, 364; Cavuga Lake R. R. Co. v. Kyle, 
5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 659. Explained in 
Seymour v. Sturgess, 26 N~. Y. 145. Applied 
(Validity of statute affecting corporate 
franchise) in Matter of Gilbert Elevated R'y, 
Sun, 311; Matter of Oliver Lee & Co's' 
Bank, 21 iV. Y. 18; Albany Northern R. R. 
Co. v. Brovvnell, 24 N. Y. 350. 

Buffalo & Niagara Falls R. R. Co. t. City of 
Buffalo, 5 Sill, 209. See to the contrary 
(Presumption that municipal ordinance was 
regularly passed) Eldred v. Lehay, 31 Wis. 
564. Cited in Abb. Tr. Bo. 771, n. 4. Com- 
mented on (Power of court to inquire 
whether law passed by constitutional ma- 
jority) in 1 Kent Com. 454, n. 

Bnffalo & State Line R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 
Sow. Pr. 96. Fallowed (Proof required 
to disprove facts alleged in petition made on 
application to take real estate under general 
railroad act) in Matter of N. Y. Bridge Co., 
4 Sun, 636. 

Buffalo City Bank v. North Western Ins. 
Co., 30 XT. Y. 251. Followed (Right to 
abandon freight) in Ilubboll v. Great 
AVostern Ins. Co., 10 Sun, 167, 170. 

Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Bnffalo, 
46 N. Y. 503. See Brick Church, Matter 
of; Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Matter of, 11 Johns. 
77. Compared with Roosevelt Hospital v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 84 V! Y. 108; Peoples. 
Davenport, dl Id. 574 (Construction of stat- 
utes exempting from taxation.— Including of 



BUFFALO SAVINGS BANK— BUMP. 



115 



assessments in exemption) in Lima v. Ceme- 
tery Ass'n, 42 Ohio St. 128. See to the 
contrary (Taxation of Cemeteries) Olive 
Cemetery Co. «. Philadelphia, 93 Penn. St. 
429. Explained and disting'd (Exemption 
from assessment of lands used as ceme- 
iery} in Matter of Eleventh Avenue, 49 
How. Pr. 208, 216. Applied (Rights of 
purchaser of burial lot) in People exrel.Qo\>- 
pers v. Trustees, 21 Hun, 184,191. Collated 
■with Lantz v. Buckingham, 11 Ab b. Pr. JV. 
S. 64; Windt v. German Reformed Church, 
4 Sand/. Gh. 471, and other cases, in 19 
Am. It. 79, n. on various points connected 
with the law of cemeteries. 

Buffalo Savings Bank v. Newton, 23 N. Y. 
160. Explained (Nature of rights affected 
by orders granting or refusing resales) in 
Wolcott v. Schenck, 23 How. Pr. 385. 
Buffalo Steam Engine Works v. Sun Mnt. 
Ins. Co., 17 XT. Y. 401. See Traders' Ins. 
Co. ■». Robert. Disapproved (Power of 
mortgagee to purchase nt his own salel in 
Olcott t. Tioga R. R. Co., 27 JV Y. 546. 
5H6. Also denied in Hall v. Ditson, 5 Abb. 
JV C. 198, 211, notwithstanding approval 
in Pulver e. Richardson, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 436. Referred to as overruled in Thomas 
on Hort. 454. Re-aff'd (Validity of transfer 
of policy between assured) in Hoffman v. 
i£tna Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 405. 

Buffalo Union Iron Works v. City of Buf 
falo, 1 Buff. Super. Gt. (Sheldon) 244 ; s. 
c, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 141. Atf d in 47 JV. Y. 
671 on opinion of Vekplanck, J. 

Bufflt v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 36 Bart 
420. Aff'd in 40 IV. F 168. Decision in 
36 Barb, explained (Common carrier — liabil- 
ity for passengers whose fare has not "been 
paid) in Aug. on Garr. § 521, n. a, 5 cd. 

Buhler v. Weiitworth, 17 Barb. 649; s. c, as 
Butler v. Wentworth. 9 How. Pr. .282. 
Approved in Wies v. Fanning, Id. 543, as 
not being authoritv for conditional pleading. 

Bulger v. Albany "Railway, 42 JV Y. 459. 
Applied (Negligence in Street car driver) in 
Lawrence v. Pendleton Street R. R. Co., 1 
Cine. (Ohio) 180. 

Bulkeley v. Keteltas, 4 Sandf. 450. Rev"d 
in 6 JV. Y. 384.. Decision in 6 JV Y. ex- 
plained (Probable cause for prosecution) in 
Shaul v. Brown, 28 Iowa, 37; b. c, 4 Am. 
E. 151, 157. 

v. Smith, 2 Duer, 261. Citicised (Prob- 
able cause for prosecution) in Shaul v. 
Brown, 28 Iowa, 37; s. c, 4 Am. P. 157. 

Bulkley v. Be Peyster, 26 Wend. See De 
Peyster v. Clendining. 

Bull, Matter of, 45 Barb. 334; s. c, 31 
How. Pr. 69. See (Effect of removal of 
executor or administrator who is testamen- 
tary trustee) Code Gin. Pro. § 2688. 

Bull v. Church, 5 Hill, 206. Aff'd in 2 
Hen. 430. 

v. Melliss. See Merrill v. Townsend. 

v. Willard, 9 Barb. 641. Approved 

(Merger of covenants in deed) in Carr v. 
Roach, 2 Duer, 20. 



Ballard v. Pearsall, 53 JV. Y. 230. Ex- 
plained with Coulter v. Express Co., 50 Id. 
585; Pollock v. Pollock, 71 Id. 137, 152 
(Right of party to discredit his witness) in 
Cox v. Eayres, 55 Vt. 24; s. c, 45 Am. It. 
583. Cited, at length, in 1 Wkart. Com. 
on Ev. § 550. 

. v. , 46 Horn. Pr. 383. Said in Id. 

430 to have been aff'd by Ct. of App. April 
7, 1874. Followed (Costs on two appeals 
to General Term) in West v. Lynch, 1 City 
Ct. 174 

— — v. Raynor. See Chamberlain v. Dempsey ; 
Ohio, &c. R. R. Co. v. Kasson. 

v. Saratoga Victory M'fg Co., 13 Hun, 

43. An»d in 77 N.Y. 52U. 

v. Sherwood, 22 Hun, 462. Rev'd in 

85 JV Y. 253. 

v. Spoor. See Brants. Fowler; People 

v. Douglass ; Wilson v. Abrahams. 

Bull is v. Montgomery, 3 Bans. 255. Rev'd 
in part in 50 JV. Y 352. Decision in 50 A r . 
Y. disting'd (Officers' protection by process 
in replevin proceedings) in Manning v. 
Keenan, 9 Hun, 686, 689, which was aff'd 
in 73 "JV. Y. 52, which see. Applied in Otis 
v. Williams, 70 JV. Y. 210. See Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 1700, n. Disting'd (Declara- 
tions by former owner) in Von Sachs ». 
Kretz, 72 JV. Y. 548, 556. 

Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391. See 
Conklin v. Thompson. Disting'd (Infant's 
liability for tort) in Hewitt v. Warren, 10 
Hun, 560. 563. Relied on in Schlossberg 
v. Lahr, 60 How. Pr. 450. Followed in 
Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 346 ; s. c, 27 Am. 
E. 354. Followed (Act may be trespass 
though unintentional) in Welch v. Durand, 
36 Conn. 182 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 55. 

v. Boyd, 2 Edw. Gh. 293. Disting'd (Ad- 
missions of principal against surety) in 
Hatch o. Elkins, 65 JV Y. 497. 

• v. Koon, 9 Cow. 30; s. c, 9 K Y. Com. 

L. Law. ed. 555, with brief note. Cited 
(Effect of administering oath in cause) in 1 
Whart. Com. on Ev. § '386. 

Bullj'iiiore v. Cooper, 2 Bans. 71. Aff'd in 
46 'JV. Y. 236. Decision in 46 JV Y. dis- 
ting'd (Sheriff, when protected in acting 
under order of discharge) in Pinckney ». 
Hegeman, 53 JV. Y. 31, 35. Followed in 
Develin v. Cooper, 84 JV Y. 417. Followed 
and also explained in Richmond v. Praim, 
24 Hun, 578, 580. Applied (Interest of 
bankrupt in assigned property) in Colie v. 
Jamison, 6 Sup'm. Ct. < I 1 . & C.) 580. 

Bulsou v. Lohnes. 29 JV. F 291. Applied 
(Proceedings before arbitrators) in Day v. 
Hammond, 57 A 7 ". F. 479, 488. See Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 2365 n., 2371, n. Quoted 
in 2 Greenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 74, n. e. 

Blimp v. Betts, 19 Wend. '421. Cited as au- 
thority (Action for maliciously suing out 
attachment) in Spaids v. Barrett, 57 III. 28!) ; 
s. c, 11 Am. It. 10, 13. Followed in Law- 
rence i>. Hagerman, 06 111. 08; s. c, 8 Am. 
E. 674, 679. 

T. , 23 Wend. 85. See Lewis v. Chap- 



116 



BUMPUS— BURCH. 



man. Cited as authority (Evidence of pecu- 
niary condition) in Heneky v. Smith, 10 
Oreg. 349 ; s. c, 45 Am. R. 143. 

Bninpus r. Platner, 1 Johns. Oh. 213. Re- 
lied on (Eelief against contract for sale of 
lands) in Hyslip v. French, 02 Wis. 015, as 
in harmony with Parkenson v. Sherman, 74 
N. Y. 92. Reconciled with Abbott v. Allen, 2 
Johns. 519, in Parham i>: Randolph, 4 How. 
(Miss.) 435; s. c, U."> Am. Dec. 403, with 
note. Both these cases cited in Ouice a. 
Sellers, 43 Miss. 52; s. c, 5 Am. R. 476, as 
to defect of title being no ground for such 
relief. Quoted and contrary cases cited in 
1 High on Ii>j. 2 ed. § 384. n 2. 

Bumstead v. Hoadley, N~. Y. Daily Reg. Dee. 
19, 1376. Applied (Cost for drawing in- 
terrogations) in Johnson v. Chappell, 7 
Daly, 43. 

t— v. Read, 31 Barb. 661. Explained (Dis- 
proving jurisdiction) in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 
Boot. 166, 224. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 2473, n. 

Bunce T. Reed, 16 Barb. 347. Explained 
with Anon., 1 Wend. 90 (Sufficient publica- 
tion) in Howard v. Hatch. 2i> Barb. 297. 
See Code Oh. Pro. 1881, § 444, n. 

Bnndy v. Bunily, 47 Barb. 135. Reported 
with decision aft'g it, in 38 N. Y. 410. 
Decision in 38 N. Y. explained (Meaning 
.of word " heirs ") in Thurber ■». Chambers, 
4 Han, 723. Followed in Kiah v. Grenier, 
1 Sup'rn. Ot. (T. & O.) 392. Applied 
(Validity of trust, where beneficiary is trus- 
tee) in Rogers v. Rogers, 18 Han, 409. Cited 
as authority (Construction of words of limita- 
tion and of purchase) in Taggart v. Murray, 
53 K Y. 239. Disting'd with Holden «. 
N. Y. & Erie Bank, 72 Id. 286. (Setting 
apart of property, to produce income) in 
Arthur v. Nelson, 1 Dem. 337. 

Bange t. Koop, 5 Robt. 1. AffM in 48 iV. 
Y. 225. Decision in 5 Robt. cited (Effect of 
notice given by party to contract of sale, as 
waiver of delivery or tender) in Patten v. 
Stitt, 34 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 344. Decision 
in 48 iV , Y. disting'd (Effect of acceptance 
by creditor of sum less than that due) in 
Gray v. Barton, 55 If. Y. 71 ; Luddington 
v. Bell, 77 JV. Y. 138. Commented tipon 
and modified in Grocer's Bank of N. Y. v. 
Fitch, 1 Sufm. Ot. (T. & O.) 654. 

Bunker t. Lutson, 1 E D. Smith, 410. See 
(Justice's court — appeal — .new trial) Code 
Oiv. Pro. 1881, § 3064, n. 

Bnrin v. Hoyt. See Duryee v. Dennison. 

T. Biker, 4 Johns. 426; s. c, 4 Am. 

Dec. 292, with note; 3 K Y. Com. L. 
Law. ed. 870, with brief note. See Juhel v. 
Church ; Rust v. Gott ; Vischer v. Yates. 
Followed (Invalidity of election bets) in 
Lansing i). Lansing, 8 Johns. 454 ; Vischer v. 
Yates, 11 Id. 28. Approvingly cited with 
Rust v. Gott, 9 Cow. 169, in Russell v. Py- 
land, 2 Hamph. (Tenn.) 131 ; s. c, 36 Am. 
R. 307, with note. Disting'd in Lurton v. 
Gilliam, 1 Scam. (III.) 577; s. c, 33 Am. 
Dec. 430. Followed but criticised in Bettis 



v. Reynolds. 12 lred. (N. C.) Law. 297 ; 8. 
c, 55 Am. Dec. 416. Followed (When cog- 
nizance will not be taken of fictitious suits) 
in Brewington «. Lowe, 1 Ind. 21 ; s c, 
Smith, 79; s. c, 48 Am. Dec: 349, with 
note. 

v. Vaughan, 3 Reyes, 345. Cited as 

authority (Effect of death of trustee of per- 
sonal estate) in Enjerson v. Bleakley, 2 Abb. 
Ct. App. Dec. 28. Dissented from in Wells 
v. Wallace, 2 Red/. 58. Explained and dis- 
ting'd with Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. 641; 
Savage v. Burnham, 17 N. Y. 561, in Cur- 
tis v. Smith, 60 Barb. 9. 

v. Wiuthop, 1 Johns. 329. See Dayton 

v. Tillou ; Hayes v. Kershow; Souverbye r. 
Arden. Followed (Enforcing trust created 
by voluntary conveyance) in Dennison v. 
Goehring, 7 Penn. St. 175; s. a, 47 Am. 
Dec. 505, 508, with note. Quoted and ex- 
plained (Deed retained in grantor's posses- 
sion uutil death) in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 
4 ed. 338. 

Bunnell t. Greatlitfad, 49 Barb. 106. "See to 
the contrary (Watching adultery as conniv- 
ance) Phillips v. Phillips, 1 Robertson (Bug. 
Ecc.) 144, 160. 

Banner v. Storm, 1 Sandf. Oh. 357. Exam- 
ined (Execution of power) in Taylor n. 
Morris, 1 N. Y. 341, 350. 

Bnnten t. Orient. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. 
254. Further decision, in 8 Bosw. 448, aff d 
2 Reyes, 667. Decision in 4 Bosw. relied on 
(Jury bound by erroneous instructions) in 
Emerson v. County of Santa Clara, 40 Cat. 

* 545; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 136, n. 

Bunting v. Brown, 13 Johns. 425. Rule 
said to be changed by statute (Arrest with- 
out judge's order) in Bromley v. Town, 1 
Hill, 373. 

Bui-bank v. Fay, 5 Lans. 397. Affdin65iv: 
F.,57. Decision in 65 N. Y. commented upon 
in 32 Am. Dec. 719, n., as adopting the 
Penn. rule, which is rapidly gaining ground 
respecting private occupancy as vesting title 
inconsistent with public use. Applied 
(Estimation of damages and benefits result- 
ing from construction of canal) in Whitney 
r. State of N. Y., 96 N. Y. 240. ' 

v. Reed, 11 Weekly Dig. 576. Opinion 

in full, in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 42, n. Followed 
(Examination before trial) in Russ r>. Camp- 
bell, 1 Oio. Pro. R. 42 

Burbridge v. Marcy, 54 How. Pr. 446. Fol- 
lowed (Effect of N. Y. mechanic's lien act of 
1875 in repealing former statutes in Heck- 
man i). Pinkncy, Abb. K C. 371, 374. 
Approved and allowed (Interests not affected 
by mechanic's lien) in Ilolley v. Van Dolsen, 
55 How. Pr. 333. Applied with Holley v. 
Van Dolsen, 55 How. Pr. 333 (Liability, 
under lien law, for improvements instituted 
by another) and Otis v. Dodd, 24 Hun, 533; 
Burkitt v. Harper, 79 iv". Y. 273, disting'd 
in Cornell «. Barney, 26 Hun, 134. 

Bnrch v. Newberry, 1 Barb. 648. Aff d in 
10 N. Y. 374. Decision in 10 K Y. cited 
(Unconstitutionality of legislation impairing 



BUFFALO CITY CEMETARY— BURKE. 



117 



effect of judgment) in Lawson v. Jeffries, 47 
Miss. 686; s. c, 12 Am. R. 342. 

v. Spencer, 15 Hun, 504. See Moses v. 

Mead ; Van Bracklin v. Fonda. Commented 
upon (Implied warranty of provisions for 
domestic use) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 1012, re. 
44 (Corbiu's 4 Am. ed.). Reviewed and 
collated with other cases, and disapproved in 
22 Am. L. Reg. W. S. 233. 
Biirckle v. Eckart, 3 Den. 279. AfFd in 3 
N. Y. 132. Previous decision in 1 Den. 
337. Decision in 1 Den. disting'd (Partic- 
ipation in profits, as test of partnership 
relation) in Mohawk Nat. B'k v. Van 
Slyck, 29 Hun, 188. Recognized in Leg 
gett «. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 279. Cited with 
Heimstreet «. Howland, 5 Den. 68, 70, and 
other cases, by Doe, J., in Eastman v. 
Clark, 53 W: H. 276 ; s. c, 16 Am, R. 192, 
266. as according with an irresistible weight 
of authority. Quoted and explained in 1 
Colly er on Partn. § 31, re. 2, Wood's Am. 
ed. ; Id. § 47, re. 1. Decision in 3 N. Y. 
disting'd with Landers v. Staten Island R. 
R. Co., 53 K Y. 450 (Waiver of objection 
to want of jurisdiction) in Goldman v. 
Monds, 1 City Ct. 97. Explained in 
Mahaney e. Penman, 1 Abb. Pr. 37. Com- 
pare Simmons v. De Barre, 8 Id. 269, 279. 
Cited as authortiy in Brown v. Snell, 57 
K Y. 302. Cited in Spyer v. Fisher, 37 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 104, as having probably 
suggested Code Pro. § 139 as amended in 
1857. 
Burdell v. Bnrdell, 54 Sow. Pr. 91. Dis- 
ting'd (Appointment of receiver before judg- 
, ment in ejectment) in Mitchell v. Barnes, 22 
Hun, 1 98. Compare Sheridan v. Jackson, 72 
IT. Y. 170. Explained in Sedgw. & W. on 
Tr. of Til. to Land § 015. 
Bnrdett v. Love. 11 Weekly Dig. 323. Re- 
ported as Burdett ». Lowe, 22 Hun, 588. 

T. Lowe, 22 Hun, 588. Rev'd in 85 K 

Y. 241. See Savage v. Allen. 
Burdick v. Green, 18 Johns. 14. See Bron- 
son v. Earl. Explained (Commencement of 
suit) in Rose*. Luther, 4 Cow. 161. Com- 
mented upon in Ang. on Limit. § 312, 
6 ed. Applied with Hughes ■». Wheeler, 
8 Cow. 77 (Recovery on debt for which 
note has been given) in Velledge v. Boston 
Iron Co., 5 Gush. {Mass.) 158 ; s. c, 51 
Am. Dee. 59, 65. Explained in Hughes v. 
Wheeler, 8 Cow. 77, 80. Collated with 
other cases in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 
294. Followed (What is necessary to create 
transfer of legal title in note) in Bennett v. 
McGaughy, 3 How. (Miss.) 192; s. c, 34 
Am. Dec. 77. 

v. McVaniier, 2 Den. 170. Relied on 

(Title of mortgagee of chattels becoming 
absolute, upon default in payment) in Wray 
■b. Fedderke, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 335. 
Applied (Effect of power of sale contained 
in mortgage) in Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 
304. 

v. Post, 12 Barb. 168. Aff'd in 6 K Y. 

522. Decision in 12 Barb, quoted (Prefer- 



ences in assignment for creditors) in Burrill 
on Assign. § 169, 4 ed. Discussed (Terms 
of sale) in § 221, re. 5. Quoted and col- 
lated with other cases (Assigning only part 
of debtor's property) in Bishop on Assign. 
164. 
Burger v. Baker, 4 Abb. Pr. 11, 14. Ap- 
proved as still good law (Decision on trial of 
question of fact bv court) in Bishop v. Em- 
pire Trans. Co., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 15. 
Burg-ess v. Abbott, 1 Hill, 476. Affd in 6 

Id. 125. 
Burgher v. Columbian Ins. Co., 17 Barb. 
274. Misreported. Opinion of Edmonds, 
J., given as that of the court, was a dissent- 
ing opinion. Opinion of court was delivered 
by Roosevelt, J., and judgment aff'd. 

v. Hughes, 5 Hun, 18Q. Aff'd, it seems, 

in 63 W. Y. 629, but without opinion. 
Burhans v. Burhans, 2 Barb. Ch. 398. Dis- 
ting'd (Determining adverse claims in par- 
tition suit) in Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 iV. Y. 
427, 434. 

v. Tibhitts, 7 How. Pr. 21. Subsequent 

decision in Id. 74. Decison on p. 21 
relied on (Alteration in verdict when not 
cause for setting it aside) in Herzberg v. 
Murray, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 271. Decis- 
ion on p. 74, followed (When title to real 
property comes in question at trial) in Seam 
v. Currier, 15 Hun, 184, 186. • 

v. Van Zaudt, 7 Barb. 91. Rev'd in 7 

K Y. 523. Decision in 7 -V. Y. followed 
(Right of tenant in common, to hold title 
for his exclusive benefit) in Weare ». Van 
Meter, 42 Iowa, 128; s. c, 20 Am. R. 616; 
Van Home v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Gh. 388, 
being also, with other cases, relied on. 
Burk's Will, 2 Redf. 239. Applied (Publi- 
cation of will) in Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 
Redf. 244, 260. 
Burke, Matter of, 4 Sandf Ch. 617. ■ See 
Wilkes v. Rogers. Reviewed (Maintenance 
and support of infants) in 16 Am. Dec. 662, 
n. and citations collected. Criticised in 
McKnight v. Walsh, 23 N. J. Eg. (8 C. E. 
G.) 136-144, as standing by itself in N. Y., 
and going far beyond any decision, doctrine 
or dicta in any of the English cases. Re- 
viewed with Matter of Turner, 10 Barb. 552, 
557; In re Davison, 6 Paige, 136; In re 
Ryder, 11 Id. 185, in Tyler on Inf. & Con. 
2 ed. § 192, as in accordance with decisions 
in other States, and in England. 

, 2 Hun, 281 ; mem. in 4 Sup'm. Ct. 

(T. & O.) 657. Modified in 62 XT. Y. 224. 
Decision in 62 N. Y. applied ("Party ag- 
grieved" by improper assessment) in Mat- 
ter of Walter, 75 A". Y. 357. Disting'd 
(What is repavemenl) in Matter tff Grube, 
81 K Y. 139, 141. Disting'd (Burden of 
proof as to injury by assessment) in Matcer 
of Gantz, 85 A 7 ". Y. 536, 539. 
Burke v. Candee, 63 Barb. 552. Followed 
(Basis for extra allowance) in Riley v. Hul- 
bert, 13 Weekly Dig. 101. Explained and 
applied in Williams v. Western Union Tel. 
Co., 01 How. Pr. 305, 307. 



lis 



BUEKE— BURNETT. 



Y. Nicliols. 34 Barb. 430; s. c, 21 How. 

Pr. 459. Affd in 2 Keyes, 070; s. a, 1 
Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 200. See Green v. Col- 
lins. Decision in 2 Keyes, 670, disting'd 
(Eviction of grantee) in Adams v. Conover, 
87 If. Y. 428. 

v. Valentine, 52 Barb. 412; s. c, 5 Abb. 

Pr. If, S. 164. Said in 6 Alb. L. J. 167 
to have been aft'd by Ct. of App., June 21, 
1872. See (Tenancy by curtesy) Matter of 
Winne, 1 Lans. 508, 512, which was, how- 
ever, rev'd in 2 Lans. 21. See, also, Breeding 
■o. Davis, 77 Va. 639; s. c, 46 Am. P. 740. 
Quoted and collated with other cases in 
Sharsw. & B. Gas. on Real Prop. 289. 
Discussed (Perpetuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills 
Rand, and T. ed. 512, n. 

v. Wolfe, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 263. 

Disting'd (Admissibility of copies in evi- 
dence) in Derham v. Lee, 47 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 174, 183. 

Burkelt v. Taylor, 86 If. Y. 618. Reported 
in 13 Weelcly Dig. 75. 

Burkhalter v. Second Nat. Bank, 42 2V! Y. 
538. Disting'd (Drawer, when charged) in 
First Nat. Bank o. Fourth Nat. Bank, 77 
N. Y. 320, 320. 

Bnrkhardt v. McClellan, 15 Abb. Pr. 243, n. 
Disting'd (Levy under attachment) in 
Rodgers v. Bonner, 55 Barb. 9, 24. 

v. Sanford, 7 How. Pr. 329. Rev'd in 

effect (Levy on Real property) in Burkhardt 
v. McClellan, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 263. 

Bnrkitt y. Harper, 14 Hun, 581. Aft'd in 
79 N. Y. 273. See Burbridge «. Marcy. 
Decision in 14 Hun, followed (Mechanics' 
lien against owner of leased premises) in 
Otis v. Dodd, 24 Hun, 538, 540. 

Burkle v. Lnce, 6 Hill, 558. Aff'd in 1 K 
Y. 163. For additional facts and points of 
counsel, see How. App. Gas. 330. Further 
decision in 1 If. Y. 239.. Decision in 1 If. 
Y. 163 disting'd (Abatement of action of 
replevin) in Roberts v. Marsen, 23 Hun, 
486, 488. 

Burleigh v. Center, 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
4A1. Appeal dismissed in 74 If. Y. 608. 

Burling v. Freeman, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
695. Reported in 2 Hun, 661. 

v. King, 66 Barb. 633. Further decis- 
ion in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 545; s. c, 
less fully, 46 How. Pr. 452. 

Burlingame v. Burlingame, 7 Cow. 92. 
Explained (Remedy on parol contracts for 
purchase of real estate) in Jack v. M'Kee, 9 
Burr (Penn.) 235. Differently explained 
in Malaun's Administrator i>. Amnion, 1 
Grants {Penn.) Cases, 123, 142. Com- 
mented on and in part overruled in King v. 
Brown, 2 Hill, 485. Collated with Shute v. 
Dorr, 5 Wend. 204 ; Clark v. Fitch, 2 Wend. 
463; Canover «. Cooper, 3 Barb. 115; John- 
son v. Gibson, 4 E. D. Smith, 121, and other 
cases (Emancipation of minor child) in 35 
Am. B. 117, n. 

v. Puree, 12 Hun, 144. Further pro- 
ceeding in Id. 149. See, to same effect 



(Jurisdiction of State courts in bankruptcy 
proceedings) Wheelock v. Lee, 5 Abb. If. 
C. 72. 

Burlock y. ^Peck, 2 Duer, 90. Disapproved 
(Passing of right to reimbursement for use 
of party-wall, with grant of premises) in 
Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; s. c, 13 Am. 
E. 613. Cases collected and compared in 
7 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 13. 

Burineister, Matter of, 12 Hun, 478. Rev'd 
in 56 How. Pr. 410; s. c, less fully, 76 
If. Y. 174. Former decision in 9 Hun, 
613. See Matter of Hyde. Decision in 76 
If. Y. disting'd (Repavement) in Matter of 
Grube, 81 If. Y. 139, 141. Disting'd (Valid 
basis for assessment) in Matter of Kendall, 
85 If. Y. 302, 307. 

Burnell v. N. Y. Central B. B. Co., 45 K Y. 
184. See Lamb v. Camden & Aniboy R. R. 
Co. Re-aff'd (Carrier's liability as ware- 
houseman) in Weed v. Barney, 45 If. Y. 347. 
Applied in Fairfax e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. 
R. Co., 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 139, which 
was, however, rev'd in 67 If. Y. 11, which 
see. Disting'd (Liability of carrier in mak- 
ing delivery) in Price v. Oswego & Syracuse 
R. R. Co., 50 If. Y. 213. Disting'd 
(Through contract by carrier) in Milnor v. 
N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 53 If. Y. 
363. 370. Followed (Burden of proof on 
carrier failing to deliver) in Coleman v. 
Livingston, 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 32, 35; 
Claflin v. Meyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 7. 
Questioned and disting'd in Magnin v. Dins- 
more, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 182. Fol- 
lowed in Schwerin v. McKie, 51 If. Y. 186. 

Burnett v. Harris, 50 Barb. 379. See other 
cases collected (Testimony of parties) in 1 
Abb. If. C. 363, n. 

v. Plialon, 9 Bosw. 192. Aff'd in 3 Reyes, 

594; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. K S. 212; 1 Abb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 207. Decision on motion for new 
trial reported in 4 Bosw. 622. Decision in 9 
Bosw. explained (Trade-marks) in 2 Pars, 
on Contr. 257 be, n. ee ; Id. 257 bv, n. z. 
See Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144. De- 
cision in 3 Keyes, reviewed with Fetridge 
v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144; Fetridge v. Mer- 
chant, Id. 156, in Selchow v. Baker, 93 K 
Y. 59. See in connection with decision in 
4 Bosw. (Motion for new trial) Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 1002, n. 

v. Snyder, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 238. 

Aff'd in 76 If. Y. 344. Another proceed- 
ing in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 342. See 
also, other actions in 45 Id. 577, and Id. 
582, which were rev'd in 81 N. Y. 550; s. 
c, 37 Am. R. 527 ; 81 N. Y. 651. Decision 
in 76 If. Y. followed (Partnership result- 
ing from sharing profits) in decision in 81 
If. Y. Decisions in 70 N. Y. ; 81 Id. 555, 
explained with Cnrry v. Fowler, 13 Weekly 
Dig. 287; Richardson v. Hughitt, 76 If. Y. 
58 ; in Haas v. Roat, 26 Hun, 632. Collated 
with other cases, in 27 Moah Eng. 012, n. 
Decision in 81 If. Y. explained iu Adce v. 
Cornell, 25 Em, 78, 81. 



BURNETT— BUER. 



119 



— - v.Westfall, 15 Hdw. Pr. 430. See 
(Defendant's offer to compromise) Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 738, n. 

Biirnhain v. Brennan, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & 
S.) 49. Rev'd in 74 N. Y. 597. Further 
proceeding in 60 How. Pr. 810. 

y. Harrison, 3 Bed/. 345. See (Judg- 
ment against executor for decedent's debts) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. 

v. Onilerdonk, 41 JT. T. 425. Followed 

(Action to compel determination of claims 
to real property) in Haynes v. Onderdonk, 
2 Hun, 019; Boylston v. Wheeler, 2 Hun, 
022. 

Burns v. Billon, 25 Hun, 119. Reported in 
12 Weekly Big. 473. 

v. Erben, 26 How. Pr. 273. Opinion of 

Monbll, J., given in addition, in 1 liobt. 555, 
which was atf d in 40 ' N. Y. 463. 

■ v. Howard, 9 Abb. JT. C. 321. Compare 

(Appeal vacating judgment) Britton v. Fox, 
39 Ind. 369. 

v. Kempshall, 24 Wend. 3C0. Aff'd in 

4 Hill, 468. 

y. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥., 3 Hun, 212. 

Fully reported in 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
371. 

v. People, 5 Bans. 189 ; s. c, more fully 

with dissenting opinion, in 59 Barb. 531. 

V. , 1 Park Cr. 182. Opposed 

(Effect of former conviction or acquittal) in 
17 Am. L. Rev. 748. Collated with other 
cases in 2 Bennett & H. Can. on, Crim. L. 
559. Cited with approval in State v. Little- 
field, 70 Me. 452; s. c, 35 Am. S. 335, 
with lengthy note collating cases. 

v. Provincial Ins. Co., 35 Barb. 525 ; 

s. c., more fully, 13- Abb. Pr. 425. 

v. Rowland, 40 Barb. 368. Disting'd 

(Consideration for note or draft) in Fisher 
v. Sharpe, 5 Daly, 214, 210. 

Bnrnside v. Whitney, 24 Barb. 632. Aff'd 
in 21 N. Y. 148. 

Burr. Matter of, 2 Barb. Ch. 208. Explained 
with Matter of Patterson, 4 How. Pr. 34 
(Validity of will made by drunkard while 
subject to commission) in Lewis ». Jones, 
50 Barb. 045. 

Burr v. American Spiral Spring Butt Co.,' 
17 Hun, 188. Atl'd in 81 JT. Y. 175; s. c, 
8 Abb. JT. 0. 403. 

y. Beers, 24 JT. Y. 178. See Campbell 

r. Smith; Garnsey s. Rogers; Hamill v. 
Gillespie; King's. Whitely; Lawrences. Fox; 
Schemcrhorn v. Vanderheydeu. Applied 
(Liability of purchaser of premises subject 
to a mortgage) in Thayer v. Marsh, 11 Hun, 
501, 503. Explained in Garnsey 1>. Rogers, 
47 JT. Y. 233; Real Estate Co. «. Balch, 
45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 432. Followed 
in Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 47 Barb. 
439, which was aff'd in 48 2T. Y. 253, 
which see; Pardee v. Treat, 18 Hun, 301. 
Examined and followed in Douglass *. 
Wells, 18 Hun, 88. Disting'd in Vrooman 
v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280, 285, which modified 
8 Hun. 78, which see. Disting'd in Collins 
a. Rowe, 1 Abb. JT. C. ,99. Applied, in 



Campbell v. Smith, 71 IT. Y. 26; Calvo v. 
Davies, 73 JT. Y. 216. Followed with 
Marsh v. Pike, 10 Paige. 595; Blyer v. Mon- 
holland, 2 Sanilf. Ch. 478; Trotter v. 
Hughes, 12 JT. 7. 74; Douglass v. Wells, 18 
Hun, 88, in Willard v. Warsham, 76 Va. 
392, as announcing what is now the settled 
doctrine of 1ST- Y., which is also fully 
established by the current of authority in 
this'country. Disting'd (Grantee's liability 
to lienor) in Pardee v. Treat, 82 JT. Y. 385, 
387. Applied (Promise for benefit of third 
person) in dissenting opinion of Earl, J., 
in Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 JT. Y. 30, 
39. Applied in Becker n. Torrance, 31 
JT. Y. 643 ; Coster v. Mayor of Albany, 
43 Id. 411 ; Claflin v. Ostrom, 54 Id. 
584; Glen v. Hope Mutual Life Ins. Co., 50 
Id. 381. Disting'd in Simson v. Brown, 
68 IT. Y. 358. Cited as settled law,— in 
Turk v. Ridge, 4] JT. Y. 206. Followed 
(Assumption of obligation on transfer of 
property) in Otis «. Seligman, 67 How. Pr. 
101. 

v. Burr, 10 Paige, 20. Aff'd in 7 Hill, 

207. Decision in 7 Hill quoted (Definition 
of alimony) in 2 Bishop on Mar. & I). § 
351, n. 1, 6 ed. Decision in 10 Paige, ap- 
plied (Allowance of gross sum for alimony) 
in Crain v. Cavana, 62 Barb. 109, 120. 
Criticised (Rights of wife divorced from bed 
and board) in Tyler on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 
354, as contrary to other cases cited, hold- 
ing what is there considered to be a very 
reasonable doctrine. 

y. - — , 2 Edw. 448. Explained (Bills 

of particulars in action for divorce for adul- 
tery) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 607, 6 ed. 

v. Mills, 21 Wend. 290. See Lampman 

». Milks. Disting'd (Implied easements) in 
French v. Carhart, 1 JT. Y. 96, 112. Ap- 
proved and Lampman ». Milks, 21 It. Y. 
505 criticised in Outerbridge v. Phelps, 13 
Abb. JT. C. 117. Disting'd and criticised in 
Seibert v. Levan, 8 Penn. St. 383; s. c, 49 
Am. Bee. 525, with note. 

t. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. 85. Explained 

(Intestacy. Distribution. Foreign doinicil) 
in Willard on Executors, 404. 

v. Stenton, 52 Barb. 377, 389. Not 

followed (Interest of tenant for years in sur- 
plus money arising from sale under foreclos- 
ure) in Clarkson v. Skidmore, 2 Bans. 23S. 

y. Tan Buskirk, 3 Cow. 263. See 

Christman e. Floyd. Commented on and 
explained (Sufficiency of avowry in replevin) 
in Webber v. Shearman, 6 Hill, 20. Over- 
ruled in Lion v. Burtis, 5 Cow. 408. 

v. Wilcox, 6 Bosw. 198. Aff'd in 22 JT. 

Y. 551. Decision in 22 JT. Y. Applied (Na- 
ture of corporate stock) in Williams v. West- 
ern Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. JT. C, 437, 443. 
Disting'd with Handy i>. Draper, 89 JT. Y. 
334; Shellington ». Howland, 53 Id. '&72 
(liability of stockholder for interest on 
debts of the corporation) in Wheeler o. Mil- 
lar, 90 JT. Y. 353. Collated with other 
cases in Munger v. Jacobson, 99 III. 349. 



120 



BURRALL— BURT. 



Burrall v. Acker, 23 Wend. 606 ; s. c, 35 
Am. Dec. 582, with note. See Acker v. 
Burrall. Cited (Sale of partnership property 
on execution against one partner), in Story 
on Partn. 7 ed. § 262, n. Explained in 1 
Pars, on Oontr. 209, n. i. 

v. Bush wick E. E. Co., 75 K 7. 211. 

Applied (Nature of corporate stock) in Bar- 
clay v. Culver, 30 Dun, 1. Criticised in 
Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. 
AT". C. 423. Applied with Barry v. Mer- 
chant's Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280 ; in 
Williams «. Western Union Tel. Co., 93 N~. 
7. 162, 188. See also (Pleading plaintiff's 
title) note to Richardson v. Snyder, 20 Am. 
L. Reg. 393, 397. 

t. Jewett, 2 Paige, 134. See Cross v. 

* Huntley. Explained and limited (Jurisdic- 

| tion of State courts in questions involving 
patents) in Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 
57 A 7 . 7. 119, 124. Compare Gibson v. 
Woodworth, 8 Paige, 133. 

Burrel v. Associate Church, 44 Barb. 282. 
See cases collected (Right of seceders) in 12 
Am. L. Peg. N. S. 362, n. 

Burrell v. Bull, 2 Sandf. -Ch. 15. Applied 
(Duty of one acting for others not to hold 
interest adverse to them) Baker v. Humph- 
rey, 101 U. S. 494, 501. 

Burrill v. Boardman, 43 N. 7. 254. See 
Hone ». Van Schaick. Explained (Charit- 
able use) in Holmes v. Mead, 52 JST. 7. 332, 
338. Collated with other cases in Gerard 
Titles to Peal Est. 2 ed. 304. See papers 
in Charles O'Conor's My Own Cases, No. 79 
in Law Institute Library, N. Y. City. 

v. Chenango County Mut. Ins. Co., 1 

Edm. 233. Disapproved (Effect of misstate- 
ment as to realty, upon insurance on person- 
alty) in Todd v. State Ins. Co., 11 Phil. 
{Pa.) 357, as overruled by Wilson v. Her- 
kimer Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 6 JST. 7. 53. 

v. Shiel, 2 Barb. 457. Discussed (Per- 
petuities) in 1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand, and 
T. ed., 512, n. 

v. Watertown Bank & Loan Co., 51 

Barb. 108. See Markle v. Hatfield. Ap- 
proved. (Objection to return of commission) 
in Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 41 Bow. Pr. 
421. 

Burritt v. Saratoga Co. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 
4 Hill, 188; s. c, 40 Am. Dec. 345, with 
note wherein the case is shown to have been 
frequently cited. See Fowler v. jEtna Fire 
Ins. Go. Followed (Effect of concealment 
by insurer in fire policy) in Kennedy v. St. 
Lawrence Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Barb. 288. 
Disting'd in Masters v. Madison Co. Mut. Ins. 
Co., 11 Id. 633; Chase v. Hamilton Mut. 
Ins. Co., 22 Id. 539. Explained at length 
and disting'd in Gates v. Madison Co. Mut. 
Ins. Co., 2 JY. 7. 48, which rev'd 3 Barb. 
78, which see. Applied in. Wilson v. Her- 
kimer Co. Mut! Ins. Co., 6 If. 7. 59; Chaf- 
fee ». Cattaraugus Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Id. 
381 ; People ®. Liverpool, London, &c. Ins. 
Co., 2 Sufm. Ct. (T. & V.) 271. Followed 
with Gates v. Madison, etc. Ins. Co., 5 AT. 7. 



469, and other authorities in Hartford Protec- 
tion Ins. Co. v. Harmer;- 2 Ohio St. 452 ; s. c, 
59 Am. Dec. 702. 'Applied (Application as 
part of contract of insurance) in Egan v. 
Mut. Ins. Co. of Albany, 5 Den. 32G Ex- 
amined with other cases (What amounts to 
warranty) in Wall v. East River Mut. Ins. 
Co., 7 K 7. 374. 
v. Silliinan, 16 Barb. 198. Rev'd (Re- 
nunciation by witness to will) in 13 A 7 ! 7. 
93. See Brinckerholf v. Remsen; McDon- 
ough v. Loughlin. Decision in 13 A 7 ! 7. 
commented upon (Executor as subscribing 
witness) in Willard on Executors, 111. Re- 
viewed with Coffin v. Coffin, 23 AT. 7. 9, and 
other cases (Effect of release by legatee in 
making him a competent witness) in Whelp- 
ley v. Loder, 1 Dem. 368. Said in Seguine 
v. Seguine, 3 Abb. Pr. JY. S. 442 to be super- 
seded as to costs by amendment of 1862. 
Burroughs v. Bloomer, 5 Den. 532. Relied 
on (Absences that prevent running of 
statute of limitations) in Cole v. Jessup, 10 
Dow. Pr. 515, 527; Berrien v. Wright, 26 
Barb. 208. Approved in part, but dis- 
approved as to view taken of constructive 
absence, in Campbell v. White, 22 Mich. 
178, 179. Approved and applied in Tioga 
R. R. v. Blossburgh, &c. R. R., 20 Wall. 
137, 150. 

v. Posteran, 2 Abb. A 7 ". C. 333. Rev'd 

as Burroughs v. Tostevan, 75 A 7 ". 7. 567. 

v. Reiger, 12 How. Pr. 171. Explained 

and limited (Effect of lis pendens) in Tate ». 
Jordan, 3 Abb. Pr. 392. 
Burrows v. Erie R'y Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 
& C.) 44. Rev'd in 63 N. 7. 55fi. See 
Harty v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J. 

v. Miller, 4 Mow. Pr. 349. Collated 

with other cases (Attachment— domicile) in 
Thomps. on I'rov. Pern. 357. 

v. Norton, 2 Dun, 550. To similar 

effect (Indorsement instead of subscription) 
see Heilner ». Walsh, 47 Super. (It. (J. & 
S.) 269, 271. As to effect of Code Civ. Pro. 
§§ 3046, &c, see Bishop v. Van Vechtcn, 10 
Abb. A\ C. 220, 224. 

v. St niii in. 22 Dow. Pr. 169. Opinion 

substantially the same as that of the same 
judge in the Ct. of App., in Roome v. Phil- 
lips, 24 AT. 7. 463, which was perhaps an 
appeal in the same case. 

V. Turner, 24 Wend. 276; ». c, 35 Am. 

Dec. 622, with note. Cited (Right of one 
not named in policy to recover thereon) in 
Sleeper t>. Union Ins. Co., 63 Me. 385; s. c., 
20 Am. R. 706. 

v. Whitaker, 8 nun, 260. Affd in 71 

N. 7. 291 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 42, With 
decision in 71 AT. 7. compare (When title 
to personal property passes) O'Brien v. Jones, 
47 Super. Ct. ( J. & S.) 67, 73. Explained 
in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 424 (Corbin's 4 Am. 
ed.). 
Bart v. Brewers' and Malsters' Ins. Co., 9 
Ilun, 383. Afl'd in 78 A 7 . 7. 400. 

v. Burt, 41 N. 7. 46. Sec Bates v. 

Underhill. Disting'd (Jurisdiction in actions , 



BUET— BUSH. 



121 



between executors) in Price v. Brown, 10 
Abb. If. 0. 67, 70. 

v. Dewey, 31 Barb. 540. Rev'd in 40 

N.Y. 283. See Case v. Hall; Sweetman v. 
Prince. Decision in 40 JV! Y. applied with 
McGjffin v. Baird, 62 JV. Y. 329 (Warranty 
of title) in Inness v. Willis, 48 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 188. Approved in Bordwetl v. 
Dewy, 45 JV. Y. 494. Explained in 2 Benj. 
on Sales, § 948, n. 18 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 
Cases collected and followed in Matheny v. 
Mason, 73 Mo. 682. 

v. Dutcher, 34 JV Y. 493. Examined 

and disapproved (Rule of damage in conver- 
sion) in Baker v. Drake, 53 If. Y. 211, 220. 
Disting'd in Whelan v. Lynch, 65 Barb. 
329. Followed in Lobdell v. Stowell, 51 
JV Y. 70, 76. 

v. Farrar, 24 Barb. 518. Examined and 

reviewed (Corporate creation and existence) 
in 8 South. L. Rev. If. S. 530. 

v. Place, 4 Wend. 591. Explained and 

followed (Malicious prosecution) in Palmer 
v. Avery, 41 Barb. 290. 

v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; s. a, 15 Am. 

Dec. 402, with note containing citations. 
Compared (Evidence of former recovery) in 
Wood ®. Jackson, 8 Wend. 45. See also Same 
v. Same, 18 Id. 107, 123. Explained (Former 
recovery as evidence, under general issue) 
in Coles v. Carter, 6 Cow. 691. Ex-plained 
by Walworth, Ch., in Miller v. Manice, 6 
Hill, 125. Cited as authority in Derby 1>. 
Hartman, 3 Daly, 461. Followed (Effect of 
former recovery) in Doty v. Brown, 4 If. Y. 
75 ; Birckhead v. Brown, 5 Sandf. 143. 

Bnrtch v. Nickerson, 17 Johns. 217. In- 
cluded (Charge affecting employment, trade 
or business) in 1 Bare & W. Am.. Lead. 
Cos. 5 ed. 91. 

Bui-tis v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 
42 Jf. Y. 269. See Van Santvoord v. St. 
John; Wait v. Albany & Susquehanna R. 
R. Co. ; Weed «. Saratoga & Schenectady 
R. R, Co. Followed (Construction of L. 
1847, c. 270, — as to foreign corporations) 
in Root v. Great Western Railway Co., 45 
JV Y. 524. 

v. Burtis, Eoph. 557. Followed (Law 

of England as to marriage and divorce never 
a part of the law of this State) in Campbell 
v. Crampton, 18 Blatchf. C. Gt. 150, 160. 
Commented upon and discussed in 1 Bish. 
on Mar. & D. § 72, 6 ed. 

v. Doughty, 3 Bradf. 287. Disting'd 

(Lapse of legacy to a person and his heirs) 
in Williams v. Seaman, 3 Bed/. 148, 150. 

v. Thompson, 42 If. Y. 246; s. c, 1 

Am. B. 516. Explained (Effect of antici- 
patory refusal to perform contract) in 
Howard v. Daly, 61 If. Y. 362, 377. 
Reviewed with Freer ». Denton, 61 JV". Y. 
492, and other cases, in Day v. Conn. Gen. 
Life Ins. Co., 45 Conn. 480; s. c, 29 Am. 
It. 693, 699. Collated with other cases, in 
Goyert v. Stoner, (Super. Gt, Ginein., Ohio) 
11 Week L. Bid. 53. Compared in 3 
Alb. L. J. 115, .187, 199. Discussed in 



Benj. on Sales, § 509 (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). 
Explained in 2 Id. § 860 (Corbin's 4 Am. 
ed.). Cases collected (Promise to marry — 
when broken) in 11 Am. L. Beg. If. S. 71. 

Burtnett, Matter of, 8 Daly, 363. DistingM 
(Examination of assignor for creditors) in 
Matter of Swezey, 62 How. Pr. 215, 218. 
Followed in Matter of Brown, 10 Daly, 
115. 

Burton v. Burton, 26 Haw. Pr. 474. Rev'd 
in 1 Keyes, 359; s. c, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dee. 
271. Decision in 1 Eeyes, cited as author- 
ity (Rights of alien widow of naturalized 
citizen) in Headman v. Rose, 63 Oa. 465. 
Doctrine applied in Renner v. Muller, 44 
Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 535, 546. Followed in 
Kelly v. Owen, 7 Wall. 499. Thought in 
Pcquignot v. City of Detroit, 16 Fed. Bep. 
215, to have been decided by a divided 
court. 

v. Stewart, 3 Wend. 236 ; s. c, 20 Am. 

Dec. 692, with note wherein it is said to 
have boon frequently cited (Total and partial 
failure of consideration of note). Cited as 
authority with Tallmadge v. Wallis, 25 
Wend. 107; Case v. Hall, 24 Id. 102 (De- 
fense of want of title, in action against 
purchaser in possession for purchase price) 
in Sumner v. Gra3 r , 4 Ark. 467; s. c, 38 
Am. Deo. 39, 41. 

Burwell v. Jackson, 9 If. Y. 535. See Gazley 
». Price. Examined and approved, but dis- 
ting'd (Warranty of title implied in con- 
tract for sale of land) in Lcggett v. Mut. Life 
Ins. Co. of N. Y., 53 JV. Y. 394, 398. Ap- 
plied in Story o. Conger, 36 JV. Y. 673. 
Pronounced settled law in Delavan v. Dun- 
can, 49 /JV Y. 485. Followed in Penfields. 
Clark, 62 Barb. 584, 591; Bensel o. Gray, 
38 Super. Gt. [J. & S.) 447; Collins v. 
Delashmutt, 6 Oreg. 51. Approved in 11 
Am. Dec. 36, n. as containing a remarkably 
clear exposition of the law, limited to cases 
of title in Canaday o. Stiger, 35 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 430. 

v. Knight, 51 Barb. 267. Collected 

with other cases (Effect of omission to prove 
partial payments when sued for debt) in 2 
Whart. Com. on Ev. § 789, n. 

Bush v. Barnard, 8 Johns. 407. Explained 
(Statute of Limitations — conditional ac- 
knowledgments) in Ang. on Limit. § 236, 
6 ed. 

V. Brainnrd,l Cow. 78; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 

513. See Owen v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 
Approved with Holladay v. Marsh, 3 Wend. 
147 (Horses and cattle when rightfully on 
premises) in Williams i>. Michigan Central 
R. R. Co., 2 Mich. 259; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. , 
59, where Griffin v. Martin, 7 Barb. 297, 
was disapproved as neither sound in law 
nor just in principle. Disting'd in Johnson 
v. Patterson, 14 Conn. 1; s. c, 35 Am. 
Dec. 96, with note. 

v. Cole, 28 JV. Y 261. See Brinckerhoof 

v. Phelps ; Hicks v. Minturn ; Mills v. Hunt. 
Disting'd (Personal liability of one who 
enters into a contract in behalf of another) 



122 



BUSH. 



in Bellinger v. Bentley, 1 Hun, 565. Ex- 
plained with Mills i). Hunt, 20 Wend. 431 ; 
Simpson v. Gerard, 2 Bosw. 607, in Whart. 
Com. on Ag. § 502. Collated with Pum- 
pelly 1). Phelps, 40 JV Y. 59; Driggs ». 
Dwight, 17 Wend. 71 ; Trull v. Granger, 8 
JV. F. 115; Baldwin v. Munn, 2 Fend. 399; 
Peters «. McKeon, 4 i>«ra. 546; Conger ». 
Weaver, 20 JV. T. 140. and many other 
cases (Measure of damages for breach of con- 
tract to sell) in Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 
374; s. c, 4: Am. R. 490, 493. 

T. Dennison, 14 How. Pr. 307. To the 

contrary (Sufficient appeal from justices' 
judgment) see Forman v. Forman, 17 Id. 
255. Followed in Avery v. Woodbeck, 62 
Barb. 557, 565. 

v. Hicks, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 356. 

Affd in 60 JV. Y. 298. Compare (Reforma- 
tion) Hitchins v. Pettingill, 58 JV. H. 3, 386. 

v. Lathrop, 22 JV Y. 535. See Kort- 

rightu. Buffalo Commercial B'k; Murray v. 
Lylburn ; Myers v. Davis ; Poillon ». Martin ; 
Stafford fl. Van Rensselaer. Followed 
(Rights of assignee of non-negotiable chose 
in action) in Blydenburgh v. Thayer, 1 Abb. 
Gt. App. Bee. 160; Wyman «. Smead, 31 
How. Pr. 3, 354. Followed, but criticised in 
Reeves v. Kimball, 63Barb. 129, which was 
affd in 40 JV. Y. 299, 3 11 , which see. Limited 
in Gould v. Marsh, 1 Hun, 566. Explained in 
Dillaye v. Com. Bank of Whitehall, 51 JV Y. 
353. Cited as authority in Cutts v. Guild, 
57 JV. Y. 233. Explained, at length, in 
dissenting opinion of Danfortd, J., in West- 
brook ■», Gleason, 79 JV. F."41. Explained 
in Trustees of Union College ». Wheeler, 61 
JV.F. 88, 105, 113; Greene v. Warnick, 64 
If. Y. 224, as not overruled by Moore v. 
Metropolitan Bank on this point, but only on 
point of estoppel. Disting'd in Heermans 
v. Ellsworth, 64 JV Y. 162. Followed as 
settled law in McNeil i>. Tenth National 
Bank of N. T., 55 Barb. 59, but dis- 
ting'd on appeal in that case in 46 If. Y. 
325, 338. Critically examined, with Ander- 
son v. Nicholas, 28 JV. Y. 600; Mason v. 
Lord, 40 Id. 476, 487 ; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. 
Bank, 46 Id. 325 ; Moore v. Metropolitan 
Nat. Bank, 55 Id. 41, and other cases, in 
Pomeroy on Rem. §§ 160, 161. Recognized 
as authority in Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 
U. S. 572. Referred to in Thomas on Mort. 
1 06, as settling pointof no distinction between 
latent and patent equities. Approved as 
settled law (Assignee how far subject to 
equities of third persons) in Shafer v. Reilly, 
50 If. Y. 67. Overruled (Effect of doctrine 
of estoppel") and the adverse decisions of 
McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 JV Y. 325 ; 
Commercial Bank of Buffalo ■». Kortright, 
22 Wend. 348, approved in Moore v. Metro- 
politan Nat. Bank, 55 If. Y. 41. So referred 
to in First Nat. Bank of Corry v. Stiles, 
22 Hun, 345 ; Armour ». Mich. Cent. R. R. 
Co., 65 N. Y. 124. Referred to as over- 
ruled in International B'k v. German B'k, 
71 Mo. 198; Thomas on Mort. 111. 



T. Livingston, 2 Gai. Cas. 66; s. c, 

2 Am. Bee. 316 ; 2 JV. Y. Gom. L. Law. ed. 
764, with brief note. 

v. Miller, 13 Barb. 481. See Piatt v. 

Hibbard. Collated with other cases (Bail- 
ment — onus of proving negligence) in 2 
Story on Gontr. 5 ed. § 903, n. 6. Explained 
(Loss or iujury to thing hired) in 2 Pars, 
on Gontr. 125, n. b. 

v. Peltibone, 5 Barb. 273. Aff'd in 4 

JV. F 300. 

v. Prosser, 13 Barb. 221. Rev'd in 11 

JV. Y. 347. See Bisbey v. Shaw. Decis-.. 
ion in 11 JV Y. followed (Pleading 
matter in mitigation, in action for libel 
or slander) in Howard «. Raymond, 11 
Abb. Pr. 155; Weed v. Bibbins, 32 Barb. 
321 ; Heaton v. Wright. 10 How. P-. 81 ; 
Herr v. Bamberg, Id. 131. Disting'd in~ 
Gorton v. Keeler, 51 Barb. 481, which was 
rev'd in Spooner v. Keeler, 51 JV. Y. 535, 
which see. Disting'd in Hagerrc. Tibbits, 2 
Abb. Pr. JV. S. 101. Criticised at length, 
in Van Benschoten ». Yaple, 13 How. Pr. 
99. Applied in Delevin v. Wilder, 7 Robt.- 
319; Hatfield «. Lasher, 81 JV. Y. 249, 
which affd 17 Hun, 23, which see. Decis- 
ion in 11 JV Y. regarded as authority, not- 
withstanding criticisms, in Littlejohn v. 
Greeley, 13 Abb. Pr. 311, 314. Examined 
and limited in Wachter v. Quenzer, 29 JV Y. 
547. Doubted in Maretzeck ». Cauldwell, 
2 Robt. 715 ; s. c, 19 Abb. Pr. 35. Cited, 
though not followed, in Huson v. Dale, 19 
Mich. 17; s. c, 2 Am. R. 66, as to the 
propriety of repudiating the rule, in Under- 
wood v. Parks, 2 Strange, 1200. Explained' 
as not authority for setting up mitigating 
circumstances alone, — in Fink v. Justh, 14 
Abb. Pr. If. S. 107. Applied to action for 
assault and battery, — in Foland v. Johnson, 
16 Abb. Pr. 239 ; to action for false im- 
prisonment, — in Beckett ■». Lawrence, 7 
Abb. Pr. If. S. 406. Explained (Proving 
mitigating circumstances not pleaded) in 
Travis «. Barger, 24 Barb. 623; Wehle v. 
Haviland, 42 Hpw. Pr. 407. Re-aff'd 
(Plaintiff's damages not enhanced by 
defendant's allegations of justification) in 
Klinck v. Colby, 46 JV. Y. 436. Collated 
with Lewis ». Chapman, 10 JV. Y. 372, and 
other cases, in article on malice in actions 
for slander and libel, in 26 Alb. L. J. 247. 
Quoted (Truth of the charge pleaded) in 2 
Greenl. on Ed. 14 ed. § 420, n. b. 

v. Seabury, 8 Johns. 418. Followed 

with Village of Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend. 
100; Stokes v. Corporation of N. Y., 14 Id. 
87 (Incidental powers given to city by its 
charter) in City of Dubuque i>. Stout, 32 
Iowa, 80; s. c, 7 Am. R. 171, 174. 

v. Treadwell, 11 Abb. Pr. JV. S. 27. 

See (Place of trial) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
982, n. 

v. Trustees of Geneva, 3 Sup'm. Gt. 

(T.&C.) 409. Relied on (Notice to agent 
of corporation when not notice « to cor- 
poration) in dissenting opinion of Elliott, 



BUSH— BUTLER. 



123 



J., in City of Logansport v. Justice, 74 Ind. 
391. 

v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 03 N. Y. 

531. Rev'g 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T, & ft) 629. 
Decision in 63 IT. F. disting"d (Waiver of 
proof of loss) in Goodwin v. Massachusetts 
Mut. Life Ius. Co., 73 N. Y. 480, 492. 

Bushnell v. Bnshncll, 7 IIow. Pr. 380. 
Aff d in 15 Barb. 399. See Forrest v. For- 
rest; Fuller v. Emeric. Decision in 15 Barb. 
followed (Ne exeat) in Beckwith v. Smith, 
4 Lans. 184. Reviewed, at length, and dis- 
approved in Johnston v. Johnston, 25 IIow. 
Pr. 182, 187. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
548, n. 

y. Chautauqua Nat. Bank, 10 Sun, 

378. Modified, and as modified aff'd in 74 
JST. Y. 290. 

Buswell v. Lincks, 8 Daly, 518. See Mc- 
Elwain v. Willis. Discussed (Creditors' ac- 
tions — return of execution) in Wait on 
Fraud. Com. § 87. 

Butchers' & Drovers' Bank v. Brown, 1 
IT. Y. Leg. Obs. 149. Aff'd in 6 Sill, 
443. 

v. Jacobson, 24 Sow. Pr. 204; s. c, 9 

Bosw. 595; s. c, more fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 
218. Said in 33 Sow. Pr. 620 to . have 
been aff'd by Ct. of App., in Sept. 1867. 
Another decision in 22 Sow. Pr. 470. 
Decision in 22 Sow. Pr. followed (Costs 
on motion for judgment on demurrer) 
in Whitman v. Nicol, 16 Abb. Pr. K S. 
329 ; but see to ,the contrary, Lawrence v. 
Diivis, 7 Id. 354; Roberts v. Morrison, Id. 
390 ; Pratt o. Allen, 19 Id. 450. 

Butler, Matter of, 38 W. Y. 397. Disting'd 
(buty of executor to include in inventory 
assets in another State) in Sherman v. Page, 
83 JT. Y. 123, 129, which aff'd 21 Sun, 59, 
which see. 

Butler v. Benson, 1 Barb. 526. Examined 
and limited (Admissibility of memoranda in 
evidence) in Thurman v. Mosher, 1 Sun, 
344, 348. Applied (Proof of execution of 
will) in Norton v. Norton, 2 Re<Tf. 6, 17; 
Williamson v. Williamson, 2 Id. 449, 452. 
Commented upon in Willard on Executors, 
101, 106. Adopted in Code Civ. Pro. § 2620. 
, Collated with Ruddont;. McDonald, 1 Bradf. 
352; Lyon v. Smith, 11 Barb. 124, and other 
cases, in 28 Am. P. 595, n. 

v. Boston & Alb. B. R. Co., 10 Weekly 

Big. 11. Further decision in 24 Sun, 99. 

v. Butler, Soffm. 344. To the contrary 

(Perpetuities) Butler i>. Butler, 3 Barb. Ch. 
304. Decision in 3 Barb. Ch. discussed in 
1 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 512, n. 

v. , 77 2v". T. 472 ; s. c, 33 Am. 

P. 648. Quoted and explained (Prevention 
of performance of contract — how affecting 
other party) in 2 Benj. on Sales, § 859, n. 6 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. City of Rochester, 4 Sun, 321 ; s. c, 

6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 572. Followed 
(Presentation of claim against municipal 
corporation) in Williams v. City of Buffalo, 
25 Sun, 301. 



— y. Evening Mail Assoc, 34 Super. Ct. 
{J. & S.) 58. Rev'd in 61 IT. Y. 634. 

— v. Flanders, 56 Sow. Pr. 312; s. c, 44 
Super. Ct. {.I. S S.) 531. See (Order for 
separate trial of issues) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 907, n. 

Y. Galletti, 21 Sow. Pr. 465. Dis- 
ting'd (Injunction) in Daly v. Smith, 38 
Super. Ct. (/. & S.) 158, 169. 

y. Kelsey, 15 Johns. 177. Followed, with 

Story v. Elliot, 8 Cow. 27; and Hoghtaling 
v. Osborn, 15 Johns. 119, denied (Invalidity 
of judicial acts and receiving of verdicts, on 
Sunday) in Davis v. Fish, 1 0. Greene 
{Iowa) 406 ; s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 387, 
with note. 

v. Kent, 19 Johns. 223. Cited with Bank 

of Rome v. Mott, 17 Wend. 556 (Proof of 
special damage to individual in action 
against public ministerial officer for negli- 
gence) in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 548. 

v. Lee, 3 Robt. 044. AfE'/J, in effect, in 

1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 279; s. c, more fully, 
33 Sow. Pr. 251 ; 3 Keyes, 70. With 
decision in 3 Keyes, compare (What is final 
judgment) Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286. 
First paragraph of head-note in decision in 
33 Sow. Pr. said in Pomeroy on Item. § 69, 
n. 1, not to be sustained by the decision. 

— v. Lewis Common Pleas, 10 Wend. 541. 
Aff'd in 15 Id. 110. 

v. Mason, 16 Sow. Pr. 546. Approved 

(Rebutting matter improper in complaint) 
in Sands v. St. John, 36 Barb. 628, 633 ; 
s. c, 23 Sow. Pr. 140. 

v. Maynard, 11 Wend. 548; s. c, 27 

Am. Dec. 100, with note, collecting cita- 
tions respecting levies. 

— y. Mayor, &c. of New York, 1 Sill, 489. 
Rev'd in Mayor, &c. of N. Y. v. Butler, 7 
Id. 329. But as to some other grounds, 
confirmed in Butler v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
1 Barb. 325 ; and see Briggs v. Smith, 20 Id. 
409. See Huy v. Brown. Applied (Evidence 
to impeach award) in Borrowe v. Milbank, 5 
Abb. Pr. 30. 

— y. Miller, 1 Den. 407. Questioned (Ef- 
fect of now security on debt secured by 
mortgage) in later decision in 1 JT. Y. 496, 
which aff'd 5 Den. 159. See Brown v. 
Bement. Decision in 1 JT. Y. disting'd 
(Estoppel) in Smith «. Ferris, 1 Daly, 21. 
Followed (Interest of mortgagor of chattels) 
in Stewart v. Slater, Duer, 83, 100. Cited 
as settled law (Interest of mortgagee) in 
Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 119. Explained 
in Haskius v. Kelly, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 63, 
75, as inapplicable to case of pledge. Ap- 
plied (Effect of new security for debt secured 
by mortgage) in Hill n. Beebe, 13 N~. Y. 
563. Applied in Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 
299. 

— v. N. Y., Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co., 
Supreme Ct. IIS. Followed (Time within 
which stockholder may take stock under 
plan of reorganization) in Vatable v. N. Y., 
Lake Erie, &c. R. R. Co.. 9 Abb. K C. 273. 

— Y. Palmer, 1 Sill, 324. See Clark •„•. 



124 



BUTLER-— BUTTERWORTTI. 



People. Approved (Law impairing vested 
right) in Curtis v. Leavitt, 17 Barb. 358; 
Hickox o. Tallman, 38 Barb. G13; Church 
v. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 284. Examined in 27 
ifcwi. ]56; ?i. Examined in "Scott v. Smart, 
1 Mich. 303 ; citing Cochran v. Van Surlay, 
20 Wend. 365. Cited disapprovingly, in 1 
Kent Com. 456, n. a. Followed (No vested 
right in forfeiture) in Hoppock v. Stone, 49 
Barb. 528. Relied on with Curtis v. Leavitt, 
15 K Y. 1, in Town of Danville v. Pace, 25 
Gratt. ( Va.) 1 ; s. c, 18 Am. R. 663, 678. 
Applied (Validity of law impairing remedy 
ou contract) in James v. Stull, 9 Barb. 482. 
Disting'd and questioned (Effect of repeal 
of a statute) in People v. Supervisors of 
Westchester, 4 Barb. 64, 75. Applied in 
People v. Townsey, 5 Den. 70 ; People v. 
Van Pelt, 4 How. Pr. 39. Cited as author- 
ity in Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 153 ; 
Hartung v. People, 22 Id. 102. Explained 
and criticised in Tinker v. Van Dyke, 1 
Flipp. (U. S.) 521, 534. Cited as author- 
ity, in Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Gal. 323, 
325. Followed in Stephenson v. Doe, 8 
Blaclcf. (Ind.) 508; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 489, 
wit'i note. Approved (Statute becoming 
part of contract) in Damman v. Com. of 
School & Cn. Lands, 4 Wise. 418. Ex- 
plained (Contracts as affected by State laws) 
in 3 Pars.' on Gontr. 533, n. h. 

v. Patterson. See Van Dusen v. 

Worrell. 

v. Potter. See Clark v. Holdridge. 

V. Rawson, 1 Den. 105. Disting'd 

(Sufficiency of complaint in action on prom- 
issory note) in Osgood v. Whittelsey, 10 
Abb. Pr. 134, 136. 

v. Sprague, 66 N. Y. 392. See Chaffee 

«. Fort. See also (What may be attached) 
Matter of True, 4 Abb. K G. 90. 

v. Stoddard, 7 Paige, 1G3; s. c, 20 

Wend. 507. Applied (Sales — fraudulent 

, possession) in Jones v. O'Brien, 36 Super. 
Ct. {J. & S.) 58, 65. Discussed' (Assign- 
ment for benefit of creditors— delivery of 
possession) in Burrill on Asssign. | 274, 
4ed. 

v. Tomlinson, 38 Barb. 641; s. c, more 

fully, 15 Abb. Pr. 88. 

v. Tucker, 24 Wend. 447. Followed (Ef- 
fect of referring dispute to umpire) in 
Whiteman v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 21 Hun, 
117, 120. Approved and followed (Contract 
to satisfaction of defendant) in Wilson «. 
Gould, 21 Hun, 446. 

— — v. Van Wyck, 1 Hill, 438. Explained 
(Conveyances to defraud creditors) in Vance 
v. Phillips, 6 Id. 433. 

v. Warren, 11 Johns. 57. Overruled 

(Interested witness not allowed to prove 
notice to produce papers) in Jackson v. 
Frier, 16 Id. 193. 

v. Wentworth. See Buhler ». Went- 

worth. 

■ v. Wood, 10 How. Pr. 313. Applied 

(Construction of statute requiring security 






for costs) in Flint v. Van Deusen, 24 Hun, 
440, 442. 

v. Wright, 20 Johns. 367. Further 

decision between same parties in 2 Wend. 
369, which was aff'd in 6 Id. 284. Decision 
in 2 Wend, applied (Money paid) in 
Dougherty v. Vallotton, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & 
S.) 405, 460. Discussed (Defense — judg- 
ment recovered) in 2 Ghitty on Contr. 1171, 
n. a, 11 Am. od. ; Id. 1172, n. c. Followed, 
with Halliday ». Martinet, 20 Johns. 173; 
Nichols v. Goldsmith, 7 Wend. 161 (Evi- 
dence of memoranda made by third persons 
since deceased) in Lathrop v. Lawson, 5 
La. Ann. 238; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 585, 587. 
Decisions iu 20 Johns, collated with Curtis 
«. Brown, 2 Barb. 51, and other cases 
(Nature of contract of guarantor) in Beebe 
e. Dudley, 26 K H. 249; s. c, 59 Am. Dec. 
341, with note. 

Iiutolpu v. Blust, 5 Lans. 84; s. c, more 
fuiiy, 41 How. Pr. 481. Disting'd (Police- 
man's power to arrest without a warrant) in 
Hennessy i>. Connollv, 13 Hun, 173, 175. 

Butterfield v. Klaber, 52 How. Pr. 255, 
262. Considered with McKeon v. See, 4 
Eobt. 449, and other cases (Noise as a nuis- 
ance) in article by Seymouk D. Thompson, 
in 22 Am. L. Reg. K S. 631. 

v. Radde, 38 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 1. 

Motion for leave to go to Ct. of App. denied 
in Id. 44; s. c, 47 How. Pr. 535. Notwith- 
standing an appeal having been taken, was 
dismissed in 58 N. Y. 489, as Butterfield v. 
Rudde and Selchaw v. Rudde. Motion for 
re-argument granted in 40 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 
169 as Butterlield v. Radde and Selchow v. 
Radde. Decision on re-argument rev'g 
decision in 38 Id. 1, is in 41 Id. 181, with 
note, giving a history of the case. Decision 
in 38 Id. 44 disting'd (Leave to appeal) in 
Alfaro v. Davidson, 40 Id. 289. Decision in 
40 Id. cited (Re-argument at general term, 
when allowable) in Produce Bank v. Mor- 
ton, 42 Id. 124. 

Buttcrnnts & Oxford Turnpike Co. v. North, 
1 Hill, 518. Applied with Fort Edward & 
Fort Miller Plank Road Co. «; Payne, 15 F 
Y. 583 ; Troy & Boston R. R. Co. e. Tibbits, 
18 Barb. 298 (Subscriptions to stock in rail- 
roads, &c.) in Craig ». Town of Andes, 93 
N. Y. 405, 414. Disting'd with Fort 
Edward & Fort Miller Plank Road Co. «. 
Payne, 15 N. Y. 583 (Contracts in aid of rail- 
roads) in First Nat. B'k of Cedar Rapids v. 
Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402 ; s. c, 31 Am. li. 153. 

Bntterworth v. Crawford, 3 Daly, 57. 
Rev"d in 46 K Y. 349. See Lampman «. 
Miiks. Decision in 46 N. Y. explained 
(Torts — easements) and cases cited to the 
contrary, in Moah's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. 
ed. 429. Cited, with other cases (Presump- 
tion of easement from common grant) in 2 
Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1346, n~ as greatly 
qualifying the doctrine of the text; Part- 
ridge v. Gilbert, 15 K Y. 601, being also 
cited in this connection. 



BUTTER WORTH- BYRNES. 



125 



- — v. Gould, 41 2T. Y. 450. See Patrick e. 
Mctcalf. Followed (Recovery by one of 
two claimants of amount in dispute, when 
it has been paid to the other) in Osby v. 
Conant, 5 Lans. 310; Rowe v. Bank of Au- 
burn, 51 If. Y. 074; Decker v. Saltzman, 59 
If. Y. 279. Disting'd in Carver i>. Creque, 
48 If. Y. 385; Hathaway v. Town of Oin- 
cinnatus, 62 If. Y. 434, 447. Followed in 
Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 83 JS. Y. 40. 
Disting'd in Long v. Bussell, 45 Super. Ct. 
(J. & 8.) 434. Disting'd (Claim against 
XL S. government) in Lake v, Devoe Manu- 
facturing Co., 7 Daly, 161, 163. 

v. O'Brien, 28 Barb. 187; s. c, 7 Abb. 

Pr. 456; 16 How. Pr. 503. Aft'd in 23 
N. Y. 275. Further decision in 39 Barb. 
192 ; s. c, 24 How. Pr. 438. Decision in 28 
Barb, approved (Effect of statute forbid- 
ding corporations to interpose defense of 
usury) in Belmont Branch Bank v. Hogs, 7 
Bosw. 543, 558; and see Hungerford's Bank 
v. Dodge, 30 Barb. 625, 629. Decision in 
23 N. Y. followed in Strong v. N. Y. 
Laundry M'f'g Co., 37 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
279, 282. Decision in 39 Barb, overruled 
(Action by creditor or receiver) by Osgood 
v. Lay tin, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 418. 

Button v Hudson River R. R. Co., 18 If. Y. 
248. See Owen v. Same. Said in Johnson 
v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 20 If. Y. 65, 
not to be a lucid precedent (Burden of proof 
as to plaintiffs freedom from negligence). 
Examined in Welling r>. Judge, 40 Barb. 
209. Applied in Robinson v. N. Y. Cen- 
tral, &c. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 152. Applied 
(Contributory negligence) in McGrath v. 
Hudson River R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 152; Cox 
v. President, &c. of Westchester County 
Road, 33 Barb. 416. Examined in Bern- 
hardt v. Renss. & Saratoga R. R. Co., 19 
How. Pr. 203. Collated with Johnson v. 
Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 21; 20 If. 
Y. 65 ; Reynolds v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. 
Co., 58 Id. 248 ; Chapman v. New Haven 
R. R. Co., 19 Id. 341 ; Colegrove v. N. Y. 
& N. H. R. R. Co. & N. Y. & Harlem R. R. 
Co., 20 Id. 492 ; Brown v. N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co., 32 Id. 597; Webster ». Hudson 
River R. R. Co., 38 Id. 200; Mooriey v. 
Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 liobt. 548, and 
other cases, in 28 Am. B. 563, n. 

— — v. McCauley, 38 Barb. 413. Rev'd 
(Breach of promise of marriage) in 1 A bb. 
Ct. App. Dec. 282 ; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 29. 

Butts V. Genung, 5 Paige, 254. Applied 
(Liability of estate of joint debtor) in Stahl 
v. Stahl, 2 Lans. 60. Explained and applied 
(Proof in action by judgment creditor against 
heirs at law) in Blossom v. Hatfield, 24 Hun, 
275. 

v. Swartwood, 2 Cow. 432, with note, 

and supplemental note at p. 572. Decisions 
in notes denied (Testimony by persons 
who deny any future punishments) in At- 
wood v. Wclton, 7 Coim. 75, as opposed to 
Jackson v. Gridley, 18 Johns. 98; and see 
Stanbro v. Hopkins, 28 Barb. 265. 



y. Wood, 38 Barb. 181. Aff d in 37 

If. Y. 317. See Carpenter v. Danforth; 
Greaves v. Gouge; Scott ». Depeyster. 
Decision in 37 If. Y. disting'd (Liability of 
trustee of corporation for fraudulent breach 
of trust) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 If. Y. 
38, 46. Applied in East N. Y., &c. R. R. 
Co. v. Elmore, 5 Hun, 214; Rockford, R. I., 
&c. R. R. Co. v. Boody, 56 If. Y. 461. Ap- 
plied (Inability of director, to make contract 
binding on corporation) in Coleman v. 
Second Ave. R. R. Co., 38 If. Y. 203. 
Applied (Compensation of officers of cor- 
poration) in Blalchford v. Ross, 54 Barb. 
48. Followed in Jones v. Morrison, 16 
Northw. Rep. 854, 858. Followed in 
Cheeney v. Lafayette, Bloomington, &c. R. 
R. Co., 08 III. 570; s. c, 18 Am. B. 581, 
586 ; Holder v. Lafayette, Bloomington, &c. 
R'way Co., 71 III. 106; s. c, Am. B. 89. 

Buys v. Gillespie, 2 Johns. 115; s. c, 3 Am. 
Dec. 404; 3 1 Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 321, 
with brief note, contrary to the case. 

Byass v. Sullivan, 21 How. Pr. 50, Cited 
(Witness not compelled to produce docu- 
ments that would inculpate him) in 1 Whart. 
Com. on En. § 533. 

Bye, Matter of, 2 Daly, 528. Cited in 58 
Am. Dec. 113, n., as forcibly recognizing tho 
principle of domicile by birth. 

Bjers v. Van Deusen, 5 Wend. 268. Cited 
(Effect of stipulation to submit to arbitra- 
tion matters in difference between partners) 
in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 215, n. Cited in 
Id. § 300, as showing when the dissolution 
of a partnership may be implied from the 
nature of an award. 

Bylandt v. Comstock, 25 How. Pr. 429; s. c. 
as Comstock's Case, 16 Abb. Pr. 233. Said 
not to be authority (Being out but within 
jail liberties, not being in prison) in Develin 
v. Cooper, 84 K Y 410, 416. See Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2188, n. 

Byrne v. N. ¥. Central, &c. R. R. Co.» 14 
Hun, 322 Rev'd (Contributory negligence) 
in 83 N. Y. 620. 

v. Van Hosen, 5 Johns. 66. Examined 

(Powers and duties of guardian) in Palmer 
v. Oakley, 2 Doug. 465. Approvingly cited, 
with Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 167; Jack- 
son v. Thomas, 16 Johns.. 301, and other 
cases (Presumption that possession of land 
accompanies title) in Riley v. Jameson, 3 
If. H. 23; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 325. 

v. Weeks, 7 Bosw. 372. Afi'd in 4 Abb. 

Ct. App. Dec. 657. 

Byrnes v. City of Cohoes, 5 Hun, 602. AfTd 
in 67 If. Y. 204. Decision in 67 If. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Liability for flow of surface water) 
in Lynch v. Mayor, &c. of K. Y., 76 If. Y. 
60, 62. Relied on in Beach v. City of 
Elmira, 22 Hun, 163. Followed in O'Brien 
v. City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 333; s. c, 33 
Am. It. 470; considering the principle of 
Radcliff ii. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 A r . Y. 195, 
not so sound or just ; but the latter, and 
f^oodalc v. Tuttle, 29 If. Y. 459, are cited as 
'o how a man must use his own. Fxplained 



126 



BYENES— CALDWELL. 



in Moak's UnderhilVs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 468. 
Approved as founded on the most obvious 
grounds of justice ; and other cases pro and 
con collated, in 19 Am. L. Rev. 291, 292. 

. t. National Ins. Co., 1 Cow. 265. Fol- 
lowed and approved (Applying rule for 
deducting one-third new for old, in case of 
loss under marine policy) in Eager v. Atlas 
Ins. Co., 14 Pick. {Mass.) 141 ; s. c, 25 Am. 
Bee. 363, 368, with note. 

Byxbie t. Wood, 24 N-. 7. 607. Reported 
below, as Sheldon v. Wood, 2 Bosw. 267. 
Relied on (Fixing action as one in tort by 
allegations of complaint) in Sparmann v. 
Keim, 9 Abb. N. 0. 1, 6; s. c, 83 N. 7. 245. 
Commented upon in Pomeroy on, Rem. § 572, 
n. 2, as inconsistent with Booth v. Farmers' 
& Mech. Bank, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 45. 
Applied in Townsend v. Hendricks, 39 
How. Pr. ill ; Quintard v. Newton, 5 Robt. 
80. Followed (Time for objectiug to non- 
joinder or to improper parties) in Rhodes v. 
Dymock, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 141. Ap- 
plied (Assignment of cause of action) in 
Bonnell v. Wheeler, 1 Hun, 332, 339 ; Genet 
v. Howland, 45 Barb. 567; Graves*. Spier, 
58 Barb. 385. Followed in Mason v. Raplee, 
66 Barb. 182. Disting'd as to cause of ac- 
tion against trustee, — in Bank of California 
v. Collins, 5 Hun, 209. Relied on, and 
Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 K 7. 322 doubted, 
in Baker v. Crandal, 78 Mo. 584 ; s. c, 47 
Am. R. 126. Disting'd (Exceptions) in 
Salisbury ■». Howe, 13 Weekly Biff. 448. 
Criticised but followed (Amendment of 
complaint) in Bedford ». Terhune, 30 iV. 7. 
461. Followed in Knapp v. Roche 37 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 395, 407. 

c. 

Cable T. Cooper, 15 Johns. 152. Explained 
(Effect of discharge on habeas corpus) in 
Wiles v. Brown, 3 Barb.ZT, as superseded 
by L. 1818, c. 277. Reviewed with Bank 
of the U. S. v. Jenkins, 18 Johns. 308; 
Yates' Case, 4 Id. 318, and other cases 
(Limits of power to discharge on habeas 
corpus) in Commonwealth v. Lecky, 1 Watts 
(Pa.) 66; s. c, 26 Am. Bee. 37, with note. 
Disting'd on the ground that the judgment 
was re-examinablc by writ of error, — in 
Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. ( Va. i 472 
(cited in 4 QUI [Md.] 301 ; s. c, 45 Am. 
Bee. 130, with note). 

t t. Dakin. See Brizsee «. Maybee. 

Cadwell v. Colgate, 7 Barb. 253. Disting'd 
(Validity of undertaking on attachment) in 
Bildersee v. Aden, 62 Barb. 175, 180. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 642, n. Disting'd 
(Sufficiency of affidavit on information and 
belief) in Miller «. Adams, 52 N. 7. 409, 
414. 

— v. Manning, 15 ^455. Pr. 271 ; s. c, 24 
How. Pr. 38. Approved as correctly stating 
law (Practice before and since the Code in 
obtaining security for costs) in Hinds ». 
Douglass, 19 Abb. Pr. 11. 



Cady t. Faircliild, 18 Johns. 129. Approved 
(New trial in justice's court) in Stephens v. 
Wider, 32 K 7. 351 ; explaining Herrick v. 
Stover, 5 Wend. 580; Rathbone o. Stanton, 
6 Barb. 141; Fish t>. Skut, 21 Barb. 333; 
Wiley v. Slater, 22 Barb. 506. 

Cagger v Lansing, 57 Barb. 421. Rev'd in 
43 AT. 7. 550. Decision in 43 JV. T. ex- 
plained (Effort of payment of purchase 
money on parol contract for sale of land) in 
Morrill v. Cooper, 65 Barb. 512, 517. 

T. , 4 Hun, 812. Aff'd in 64 K 7. 

417. Decision in 64 2f. 7. superseded 
(Maintaining real action by infant in his 
own name) hy Code Civ. Pro.§ 1686. Com- 
pare Id. § 1534, &c. 

Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 22 Him, 201. 
Rev'd in 84 N. 7. 532. See Allen v. Brown; 
Town of Springport v. Teutonia Sav'gs B'k. 
Decision in 84 JST. 7. not followed (Valid- 
ity of town bonds in hands of bona fide 
holder) in McCall v. Town of Hancock, 13 
Reporter, 419. 

Calien v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 41 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 296. Rev'd in 69 N. 7. 
300. Decision in 69 K 7. followed (Witness 
— privilege) in G rattan v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 80 K 7. 281, 298. 

v. Piatt, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 483. 

Rev'd in 69 N. 7. 348: s. c, 25 Am. 11 
203. 

Calioon v. Bank of Utica, 4 How. Pn 423. 
Affd in 7 How. Pr. 134, which was, 
. however, rev'd in 7 N. 7. 486. See Alger 
v. Scoville. 

Cain v. Ingham, 7 Cow. 478. See Ilighbie 
v. Leonard. See (Costs in justice's courts) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3075, n. 

Cairnes v. Bleeoker, 12 Johns. 300; s. c, 5 
N. 7. Com. L. Law. ed. 399, with brief 
note. Disting'd with Hanks v. Drake, 49 
Barb. 202 (Ratification of unauthorized sale 
by agent) in Bank of Owcnsboro v. Western 
Bank, 13 Bush (Ky.) 526; s. c, 26 Am. R. 
211, 218. Applied in Meyer v. Morgan, 01 
Miss. 21 ; s. c, 24 Am. R. 617, 620. Result 
stated (Agent's liability for conversion) in 
Laverry u. Snethcrs, 68 N.7. 522, 027; s.c, 
23 Am.R. 184. 

Caines v. Brisban. See Mitchell «. Bristol. 

Caldwell's Case. See Fitzgerald, Matter of. 

Caldwell v. Cassidy, 8 Cow. 271. See Wol- 
cott r. Van Santvoord. Cited as settled law 
(Presentment of negotiable instrument for 
payment) in Hills «. Place, 48 N. 7. 520. 
Compared with other cases in Salt Springs 
Nat. B'k v. Burton, 58 N. 7. 435. Applied 
to contract to pay for goods,— in Locklin v. 
Moore, b.Lans. 307, which was aff'd in 57 
N. 7. 360, which see. Applied to order oa 
city treasurer, — in Read v. City of Buffalo, 
67 Barb. 528. Dictum as to necessity of 
demand, in case of note payable on demand, 
denied in Haxtun v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 14. 
Explained in 1 Pars, on Cuntr. 273, n. o. 
Discussed in 3 Kent Com. 98. Followed 
(Effect of tender) in Kelly s. West, 66 Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 304. 



CALDWELL- CAVLO. 



127 



v. Murphy, 1 Duer, 233. Affd in 11 

If. Y. 41C. See Camden R. R. & Transp. 
Co. 8. Burke ; Matteson v. N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co. Decision in 1 Duer applied (Com- 
pensatory damages for personal injuries) in 
Hamilton u. Third Ave. It. R. Co., 13 Abb. 
Pr. If. S. 323. Approved and applied in 
Ransom 8. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 15 
If. Y. 423. Applied (Recovery for con- 
sequential damages) in Piatt 8. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 37 If. Y. 475. Dis- 
ting'd (Negligence in passenger who rides in 
unusual position) in Spooner 8. Brooklyn 
City R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 420. Followed 
(Necessity that negligence be contributory) 
in Johnson 8. Hudson River It. R. Co., 6 
Duer, 646. Decision in 11 If. Y. commented 
on (Admission of plaintiff's testimony ex 
necessitate) in Garvey v. Camden & Amboy 
R. R. Co., 4 AN>. Pr. 173. Applied in Baker 
v. Griffin, 10 Bosw. 142; Cleveland 8. N. J. 
Steamboat Co., 5 Hun, 529. Disting'd in 
Page 8. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 
532. Followed in Werely 8. Persons, 28 
If. Y. 344. Referred to in Reed v. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 45 hf. Y. 579, as super- 
seded by statutory provisions. Applied 
(Exception — when too general) in Elton v. 
Markham, 20 Barb. 346 ; Bows 8. Rush, 28 
Barb. 181 ; O'Donnell 8. N. Y. & Harlem R. 
R. Co., 8 Daly, 413. 

v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 56 Barb. 425. 

Aff'd in 47 If. Y. 282. Decision in 47 N. Y. 
disting'd (Master's liability to punitory dam- 
ages for wrongful act of servant) in Towns- 
end 8. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 56 K 
Y. 295, 299; Samuels 8. Evening Mail 
Assoc, 9 Hun, 291. Followed in Hamilton 
v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. If. S. 
323. Followed (Construction by appellate 
court of charge to jury) in Carnes v. Piatt, 
41 Super. Gt. {J. S S.) 435, 439; Loseo 
i>. Buchanan, 51 Jf.Y. 492. Applied (Pre- 
sumption of negligence in carrier) in Marck- 
wald v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 11 Hun, 
467. Disting'd (Misconduct by court to 
jury — when reviewable on bill of exceptions) 
in Huntoon v. Russell, 50 How. Pr. 155. 

Calhoun v. Lee, 29 How. Pr. 1. See to the 
contrary (Right of a sheriff to fees upon the 
settlement of proceedings on attachment) 
Muller 8. Sautler, 28 Id. 87; Trenor 8. 
Fachin, 20 Id. 405. 

Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667; s. c, 21 
Am. Dee. 168. Approved (Statutory remedy 
for injuries, when exclusive) in City of 
Camden 8. Allen, 2 Dutcher (K J.) 398. 
Cited as authority in Troy v. Cheshire R. R. 
Co., 23 If. H. 83; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 177, 
185. Disting'd (Payment as condition pre- 
cedent to taking property by eminent 
domain) and Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hud- 
son R. R. Co, 18 Wend. 1, explained, in 
Dusenbury v. Mutual Telegraph Co., 11 Abb. 
If. G. 440. 

v. Barger, 44 Barb. 424. Doubted (Neg- 
ligence in burning rubbish) in Hays' Adm'r 
v. Miller, 6 Hun, 320, 324. 



v. Brand. 5 How. Pr. 395. See in ac- 
cord therewith (Right of public officer to 
double costs) Tillou 8. Sparks, 9 How. Pr. 
465. 

v. Calkins, 3 Barb. 305. Aff'd, in effect, 

as Calkins 8. Isbcll, 20 If. Y. 147. 

v. Falk, 39 Barb. 620. Affd in 1 Abb. 

Ct. App. Dec. 291. 

v. Isbell. See Calkins v. Calkins. 

v. Long, 22 Barb. 97, 99. Cited as au- 
thority (Application of statutory provision 
making seal only presumptive evidence of a 
consideration) in Braden v. Ward, 13 Vr. 
(N. J.) 523. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
840, n. 

v. Packer, 21 Barb. 275. To the con- 
trary see (Tmperfect records) James 8. 
Stookey, 1 Wash. C. Ct. 330. But see Abb. 
Tr. Eo. 538. 

v. Smith, 48 N. Y. 614 ; s. c, 8 Am. R. 

575. Disapproved (Application of a partner- 
ship claim to payment of an individual debt)- 
in Gotzhausen 8. Judd, 43 Wis. 219; s. c, 
28 Am. li. 541. Cited, with Livingston 8. 
Roosevelt, 4 Johns. 251, 265, and other 
cases, in Story on Parln. 7 ed. § 132, n. 
Quoted (Suits by partners against each 
other) in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 1 97, n. 2, 
Wood's Am. ed. Disapproved (Remedy for 
misjoinder of plaintiffs) in Pomeroy on Rem. 
§ 214. 

v. Williams, 5 How. Pr. 393. See (In- 
creased costs) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3258, n. 

Callagan v. Hallct, 1 Cai. 104. Compare 
(Compensation of pilots) Schooner Wave «. 
Hyer, 2 Paine, 150. Cited with Payne 8. 
Eden, 3 Cii. 213 ; Waitee. Harper, 2 Johns. 
380 ; Bruce v. Lee, 4 Id. 410 ; Yeomans 8. 
Chatterton, 9 Id. 295; Wiggin 8. Bush, 
12 Johns. 306; Tuxbury 8. Miller, 19 Johns. 
311; in Sharp 8. Teese, 4 Halst. (N. J.) 
352; s. c, 17 Am. Dee. 479, as authority for 
denying the validity of note given by an in- 
solvent dcbtor,in consideration that his cred- 
itors withdraw opposition to his discharge. 

Callahan v. Mayor, &c. ol'N. Y., 6 Daly, 230. 
Aff'd in 66 If. .Y. 656, but no opinion. 
Decision in 86 If. Y. relied on (Want of 
jurisdiction of subject-matter, when not 
waived) in Westervelt 8. VVestervelt, 46 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 394. 

Callanan v. Van Vleck, 36 Barb. 324. Said 
in 41 If. Y. 619, to have been aff'd by Ct. 
of App. in June, 1869. 

Calvo v. Davies, 8 Hun, 222. Affd in 73 
N. Y. 211; s. c, 29 Am. R. 130. See 
Hamill 8. Gillespie. Decision in 73 If, Y. 
followed and approved (Rights arising from 
assumption of mortgage by purchaser) in 
George v. Andrews, 60 Md. 26; s. c, 45 
Am. R. 706. Disapproved in Connecticut 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. 8. Mayer, 8 Mo. App. 
22. Disting'd (Creation of right of surety- 
ship by arrangement among debtors) in 
Palmer 8. Purdy, 83 If. Y. 147. Explained 
(Effect of giving collateral security) in Fire- 
man's Ins. Co. 8. Wilkinson, 8 Steic. (if. J.) 
160; s. c, 14 Reporter, 245. 



128 



CAMBLOS— CAMPBELL. 



Camblos v. Butterfleld, 15 All. Pr. K 3. 
197. A motion in this case said to have 
been denied Nov. 30, 1875,— in 12 All. L. J. 
368. 

Camden R. R. & T. Co. v. Belknap, 21 
Wend. 354. See Hollister v. Nowlen. Dis- 
cussed (Common carrier — delivery of bag- 
gage to, to create liability for loss of) in Ang. 
on Carr. %% 135, 239, 5 ed. 

T. Burke, 13 Wend. 611 ; s. c, 28 Am. 

Dec. 488, with note, containing citations 
thereof; 12 K T. Com. L. Law. ed. 493, 
with brief note. Applied with Hollister v. 
Nowlen, 19 Wend. 236 (Liability of carriers 
of passengers), in Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Mete. 
(Mass.) 1 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 346, 353, with 
lengthy note. Examined and applied, with 
Hegeman v. Western R. R. Co., 16 Barl. 
353; 13 K Y. 9; Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 
Duer. 241, in Taylor v. Grand Trunk R'way, 
48 N. H. 304; s. c, 2 Am. R. 229, 232. 
Discussed in Ang. on Carr. § 523, 5 ed. 

Cameron v. Chappell, 24 Wend. 94. Included, 
with note (Accommodation paper — usuiy) 
in Red/. & B. Lead. Gas. on B. of Exch. 
287. 

v. Dm-klieim, 7 All. L. J. 298. Rev'd in 

55 N. Y. 425. 

v. Freeman. See Swift v. Wells. 

■ v. Irwin, 5 Hill, 272. See Wood v. 

Colvin. Cited as authority (Rights acquired 
under foreclosure of void mortgage) in 
Warner v. Blakeman, 4 All. Ct. App. Dec. 
535, which affd 36 Barl. 501, 516, which 
see. Applied in Mickles v. Dillaye, 15 Bun, 
301. Explained (Power of court of law to 
correct mistake) in McNulty v. Prentice, 25 
Barl. 213. Applied (Mortgagee — when not 
estopped from denying mortgagor's title) in 
National Fire Ins. Co. v. McKay, 1 Sheld. 145. 
Explained (Mortgage — payment as extin- 
guishing power of sale) in 4 Kent Com. 196, 
n. I. Discussed (Statute of Limitations — 
adverse possession) in Ang. on Limit. § 418, 
6ed. 

t. Seaman, 7 Hun, 601. Rev'd in 69 

N. Y. 396 ; s. c, 25 Am. R. 212, with note. 
Decision in 69 N. Y. followed (Trustee's 
liability for failure to file report) in Butler 
n. Smalley, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 492. 

v. Young, 6 How. Pr. 372. See (Execu- 
tion after creditor's death) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 1376, n. 

Cammann v. Tompkins, 1 Code R. N. S. 12. 
Affd in 12 Barl. 265. 

Cammeyer v. United German Lutheran 
Churches, 2 Sand/. Ch. 186. Cited as au- 
thority with Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barl. 
64, and other cases (Purpose of trust may 
be changed by consent) in 12 Am. L. Reg. 
A 7 ". S. 361, n. Explained (Corporate meet- 
ings) in Ang. & A. on, Corp. § 504, 11 ed. 

Camp v. Barney, 4 Hun, 373 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 022. Followed (Necessity 
of leave before suing receiver) in Barton v. 
Barbour, 104 C. S. 126. Compare dissent 
in article by Geokge W. McChaky in 17 Am. 
L. Rev. 833, 845. 



t. Bennett, 16 Wend. 48. Followed 

(Invalidity of appearance of infant defend- 
ant without guardian) in McMurray v. Mc- 
Murrav, 60 Barl. 117. 

v. Camp, 2 Red/. 141. Rev'd ml8 Hun, 

217. 

v. Camp, 2 Hill, 628. Applied (Change 

of possession on mortgage of chattels) in 
Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634, 639. 

v. Chamberlain, 5 Den. 198. See Beek- 

man v. Lansing. Applied (What constitutes 
valid levy) in Bond v. Willet, 1 All. Ct. 
App. Dec. 174. Followed in Barker v. Bin- 
ninger, 14 JY. Y. 278. 

v. Garr. See Adams v. Hopkins. 

v. Ingersoll, ,47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 534. 

Rev'd in 86 N. Y. 433. 

v. Norton, 52 Barb. 96. Compare Dex- 
ter v. Norton, 47 K Y. 62, which affd 55 
Barl. 272. 

v. Boot, 18 Johns. 22. Approved with 

Exp. Wright, 6 Cow. 399; Miller v. Van 
Anken, 1 Wend. 516; Wells v. Lain, 15 id 
99 ; West v. Stanley, 1 Hill, 69 ; Smith v. 
Barse, 2 Id.' 387 (Submission to arbitrators 
works discontinuance of suit) in Dolph v. 
Clemens, 4 Wise. 184. 

y. Wood, 76 N. Y. 92. Disting'd (Lia- 
bility of owner of dangerous premises) in 
Edwards v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 25 
Hun, 634, 637; Converse v. Walker, 30 
Hun, 596. Explained in Monk's UnderhilVs 
Torts, 1 Am. ed. 20. Cited in 34 Am. R. 
230, n., collating cases. See also lengthy 
note, 26 Am. R. 562. 

Campbell v. Adams, 38 Barl. 132. Denied 
(Former assessment upon premium note as 
bar to subsequent one) in Sands v. Sweet, 
44 Barl. 108; Jackson v. Van Slyke, Id. 
117, n. 

v. Arnold, 1 Johns. 511. Followed 

(Necessity of proof of actual possession, to 
enable action of trespass to be maintained) 
in Wickham v. Freeman, 12 Johns. 184. To 
the contrary, Starr v. Jackson, 11 Mass. 524. 
Applied, with Tobey v. Webster, 3 Johns. 
468 ; Van Rensselaer v. Van Rensselaer, 9 
Id. 376, in Gibbons v. Dillingham, 10 Ark 
9; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 233, 236, with note. 

T. liruen, 1 Brad/. 224. Disapproved 

with Westervelt v. Gregg, 1 Barb. Ch. 469 
(Reference in proceedings to compel ex- 
ecutor to account) in Matter of Douglass, 3 
Red/. 538. Disting'd in Buchan v. Rintoul, 
10 Hun, 183, 186. Overruled with Jenuings 
v. Phelps, 1 Braclf. 485 ; Babcock t>. Lillis, 
4 Id. 218 (Surrogate's jurisdiction as to 
disputed claims) in Martine's Estate, 11 
All. N. C. 50. 

v. Butler, 14 Johns. 349. See Herrick 

v. Carman. Disapproved (Liability of in- 
dorser, as guarantor) in Hall v. Newcombe, 
3 Hill, 233. Applied (Evidence to show 
malice, in action for slander) in Coleman v. 
Playsted, 36 Barl. 30. Approved (Subse- 
quent action for words given in evidence 
to show malice) in Howard v. Sexton, 4 
iv". Y. 161. 



CAMPBELL. 



129 



T. Btttts, 3 K Y. 173. Disting'd (Parol 

evidence of subject litigated on former trial) 
in Davis v. Talcott, 14 Bwrb. 620. Cited as 
authority in Smith «. Smith, 79 If. Y. 634. 

v. Campbell, 54 Sow. Pr. 115. Aff'din 

12 Sun, 636. 

v. , 65 Barb. 639. Discussed (Stat- 
ute of Frauds— verbal contract — suit for 
partial services performed) in Browne on 
Stat, of Frauds, § 122 a, n. 1, 4 ed. 

t. Champlnin & St. Lawrence R. R. 

Co.,. 18 Sow. Pr. 412. Affd in Id. 419, n. 

— - t. Conner, 41 Super. Ot. (/. & S.) 459. 
Affd in 70 If. T. 424. 

y. Consalus, 25 If. Y. 613. Relied on 

(Former judgment, when not a bar) in Fergu- 
son v. Mass. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 22 Sun, 326. 
Disting'd (Binding effect of report of referee 
in foreclosure) in Sutherland v. Ross, 47 
Barb. 147. 

v. Cothran, 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & G.) 70; 

s. c, 65 Barb. 534.. Aff d in 56 If. Y. 279. 
See Adams v. Hopkins. Decision in 56 N. 
Y. followed (Liability of attorney for sheriff's 
fees) in Van Kirk ».' Sedgwick, 23 Sun, 39. 
Limited in Bowe ». Campbell, 63 Sow. Pr. 
167. Collated with other cases, in Smith 
on Sheriffs, 524. Compare Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 3307, subd. 7. 

t. Cowdrey, 31 Sow. Pr. 172; rev'g 

Fish's estate, 19 Abb. Pr. 209 ; s. c, 1 Tuck. 
122. 

v. Erie Railway Co., 46 Barb. 540. 

Approved (Party precluded from raising 
question in which he has no interest) in 
Flint e. Craig, 59 Barb. 319. 

v. Evans, 54 Barb. 566. Afl'd in 45 

If. Y. 356. See Cook v. Gregg: Rockwell v. 
Nearing. Decision in 54 Barb, followed 
(Constitutionality of L. 1867, c. 814, pro- 
viding for seizure of trespassing animals) in 

. Squares v. Campbell, 41 Sow. Pr. 193, 
197. Explained in McConnell v. Van Aer- 
man, 56 Barb. 534. See also Leavitt v. 
Thompson, Id. 542. , 

v. Ewait, 7 Sow. Pr. 399. See (Justice 

of the peace — when authorized to issue war- 
rant for arrest) Wilson v. Robinson, 6 Sow. 
Pi: 110. 

— _ T . Foster, 16 Sow. Pr. 275. Affd, on 
the merits, but disapproved as to pleading, 
in 35 If. Y. 361. Decision in 35 If. Y. fol- 
lowed (Income of trust fund, when not to 
be reached by creditor^) in Hann «. Van 
Voorhis, 5 Sun, 427; Same v. Same, 15 
Abb. Pr. N. S. 79; Parker v. Harrison, 42 
Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 110; McEwen v. 
Brewster, 17 If. Y. 227. Disting'd in Wil- 
liams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270, 274; Miller v. 
Miller, 1 Abb. If. G. 30, 37. Commented upon 
in Wait on Fraud. Gonv. % 45. 360, 365. 
Applied (Application of statutes of uses and 
trusts to personal property) in Wells v. Wal- 
lace, 2 Bed/. 58, 63. Applied in Roosevelt 
«. Roosevelt, 6 Sun, 81, 45. 

v. Genet, 2 Silt. 290. Followed (Effect 

of injunction order in supplementary pro- 
ceedings upon after-acquired property) in 
I.— 9 



Atkinson v. Sewine, 43 Sow. Pr. 84. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2469, n. Approved 
(Losing benefit of admission of truth of 
counter-claim) in Randolph «. Mayor, &c. of 
K. Y., 53 Sow. Pr. 76. 

— v. Hall, 16 If. Y. 575. Subsequent pro- 
ceeding in Campbell v. Consalus, 25 K Y. 
613. Disting'd (Who is privy in estate, so 
as to be bound by judgment) in Bennett v. 
Couchman, 48 Barb. 83. 

v. Hogo, 4 Sun, 672. Followed (When 

action is on contract and referable) in Harden 
v. Corbett, 6 San, 522. 

— v. Johnston, 1 Sandf. Gh. 148. Ex- 
plained (Liability of executors to account 
for rents and profits) in Moncrief v. Ross, 
50 If. Y. 431. 

— v. Logan, 2 Bradf. 90. Followed 
(Publication of will) in Burk's Will, 2 Redf. 
239, 242. Disting'd in Neugent v. Neugent, 
Id. 369, 372. Quoted in 1 Jarm. on Wills. 
Rnnd. & T. ed. 214, n. Explained in 
Willard on Executors, 105. Approved 
(Revoking or altering decrees of Surrogate's 
Court) in Bailey ». Stewart, 2 Redf. 212. 
223. 

— v. Mesier, 4 Johns. Gh.. 334; s. c, 8 Am. 
Dec. 570. See Eastburn v. Kirk ; Sherred b. 
Cisco. Applied (Rights in party wall) in 
Eno 11. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer, 60; Partridges. 
Gilbert, 15 If. Y. 607, which affd 3 Duer, 
184, which see. Cited as authority, in 
Brooks v. Curtis, 50 If. Y. 643. Commented 
upon in Wood on Ifuis. 2 ed. §§ 221, 228. 
Cases collected and compared in 7 Am. L. • 
Reg. If. S. 13. Applied (Equitable con- 
tribution between owners of adjoining land) 
in Matter of Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. 
Co., 4 Paige, 553. Disting'd (Contribution 
to expense of party wall) in Sherred -v. 
Cisco. 4 Sandf. 485. Explained in Leigh v. 
Dickoson (Q. B. Div. Dec. 1883) 50' Daw 
Times B. If. S. 124. Cited with approval 
(Grounds of doctrine of contribution) in 
.Fletcher «. Grover, 11 If. S. 368; s. c, 35 
Am. Dec. 497, with note. Quoted in 2 
Ghitty on Contr. 891, n. i, 11 Am. ed. 

V. -, 6 Johns. Gh. 21. Disting'd (In- 
terest on money advanced) in Renss. Glass 
Factory ». Rertl, 5 Gow. 598. 

— v. Page, 67 Barb. 113. Appeal dismis- 
s%a in 50 N. Y. 658. 

— v. Parker, 9 Bosw. 322. Examined, 
with other cases (Distinction between chat- 
tel mortgage and pledge) in Thomas on 
Mart. 432. 

— v. People, 8 Wend. 636. Followed 
(Sufficiency of indictment for perjury at 
election) in Burns v. People, 59 Barb. 531. 

— v. Perkins. See Farrdl v. Calkins. 

— v. Rawdou, 19 Barb. 494. . Rev'd in 18 
If. Y. 412. Compared with other cases 
(Wills— gift to the heir as purchaser) in 2 
Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 617, 
n. 17. 

— v. Richardson. See Mount v. Waite. 

— v. Seaman, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & G.) 231. 
Affd in 63 N. Y. 5&3; s. c, 20 Am. R. 67. 



130 



CAMPBELL— CANAL BANK. 



Case and briefs in State Library at Albany. 
Case and points in vol. 353, Ct. of App Cas. 
Law Inst. Libr. N. Y. city. Decision in G3 
JSf. Y. followed (Injunction, against nuis- 
ance) in Beach v. City of Elmira, 22 Hun, 
158, 162. Cited as authority in Bushnell v. 
Robeson, 2 Iowa, 548. Included, with note, 
in Lawson Lead. Cas. in. Eg. Simplified, 140. 
Discussed in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 531, 
534, 544. Quoted in Id. § 711. Decision 
in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) cited in 10 Am. 
R. 674, «,, as disapproving Huckenstine's 
Appeal, 7 Penn. St. 102. 

v. Shields, 11 Sow. Pr. 565. Collated 

with other cases (Lease — eviction) in Me- 
Adam on Landl. & T. 2 ed. § 212. 

v. Smith, 8 Sun, 6. Aff d in 71 N. Y. 

26 ; s. c, 27 Am. R. 5. See further action, 
for money paid in consequence of this judg- 
ment, reported in Smith v. Truslow, 84 
A7! Y. 660. See Hamill v. Gillespie. Decision 
in 71 -ST. Y. disting'd (Assumption of debt) 
in Roe v. Barker, 82 W.- Y. 431, 435. Ap- 
plied in Hand «. Kennedy, 83 Id. 154. Fol- 
lowed in Follansbee o. Menage, 28 Minn. 
312. With Burr v. Beers, 24 N. Y. 78; 
Garnsey ». Rogers, 47 Id. 233, and other 
N. Y. cases said (Right of mortgagee to en- 
force mortgage debt against another than 
the mortgagor) in 9 Am. Dee. 155, ra.,to be 
in harmony with Mellen ». Whipple, 1 
Gray (Mem.) 317. 

v. Stakes, 2 Wend. 137; s. c, 10 N. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 78, with brief note; 
19 Am. Dee. 561. See Gelston v. Hoyt. 
Followed (Infant's liability for tort) in 
Moore v. Eastman, 1 Hun, 580; s. c, 4 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 37. Disting'd and in 
part denied in Eaton v. Hill, 50 JST. H. 235; 
s. c, 9 Am. B. 189, 192. Quoted in Swell 
Lead. Cos. on Inf. &c. 208. Commented 
upon in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 
325. Discussed with other authorities in 2 
Kent Com. 241, n. e. Followed (Liability as 
for conversion, of one receiving property on 
void or voidable contract) in Woodman v. 
Hubbard, 25 N. H. 67; s. a, 57 Am. Dee. 
310; Hall®. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 251; s. c, 
9 Am. R. 30, 33. Relied on (Differing powers 
of courts having same apparent jurisdiction) 
in Payne v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 1 
Cal. 33. •• 

— r. Tate, 7 Lans. 370. See Hubbard v. 
Gurney. Followed (Evidence that maker of 
note signed as surety) in Benjamin v. Arnold, 
2 Hun, 447, 449; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 54, but the latter overruled in Hubbard 
v. Gurney, 64 K Y. 457, 461. Cited as au- 
thority with Benjamin v. Arnold, 5 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & O.) 54; Hubbard v. Gurney, G4 
N. Y. 460 (Rigb* of surety to have his 
status respected) in Anthony ■». Fritts 
(Sup'm. Ct. N. J. Feb'y, 1883) 15 Reporter, 
726. 

— v. Tonsey, 7 Cow. 64. Followed (Lia- 
bility of foreign executor or administrator) 
in McXamura v. Dwyer, 7 Paige, 239 ; 
Brown v. Brown, 1 Barb. Ch. 189; Gulick 



«. Gulick, 33 Barb.-M; and see Rogers ■». 
McLean, 31 Id. 304, 310. Said in Marcy v. 
Marcy, 32 Conn. 308, to be irreconcilable 
with later cases in N. Y. and no longer an 
authority there. Cited in Williamson v. 
Branch Bank, 7 Ala. 906; s. c, 42 Am. 
Dec. 617, with note. Approved and applied 
in Atchison's Heirs v. Lindsey, 6 B. Mon. 
(Ey.) 86; s. c, 43 Am. Dee. 153, 157, with 
note. Explained in Cureton ®. Mills, 13 
S. C. 409; s. c, 36 Am. R. 700, 712. Dis- ■ 
approved in Hedenberg v. Hedcnberg, 46 
Conn. 30; s. c, 33 Am. R. 12. Disting'd 
in Judy v. Kelley, 11 III. 211 ; s. c, 50 Am. 
Dec. 455, with note. 

v. Vedder, 3 Reyes, 174. Relied on 

(Necessity for recording assignment of mort- 
gage) in Bank of Savings in N. Y. v. Frank, 
45 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 404. 

v. Western, 3 Paige, 124. Decision of 

Superior Court here referred to is reported 
as Lowndes v. Campbell, in 1 Hall, 598. 
See Doke v. James. 

v. Woodworth, 26 Barb. 648. Rev'd in 

20 K Y 499. Further decision in 33 Barb. 
425, affd in 24.# Y, 304. Decision in 24 
N. Y. applied (Interpretation of assignment 
for benefit of creditors) in Benedict v. Hun- 
tington, 32 K Y. 219, 227. Decision in 20 
If. Y. disting'd (Evidence of value' of con- 
verted property) in Flannagan ». Maddin, 81 
N. Y. 623. 

Canaday v. Stiger, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
423. Affd in 55 N. Y. 452. Decision in 
55 JT. Y. followed (Correcting judgment on 
appeal) in Schreyer v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 
40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 255. Decision in 
35 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) examined in 5 Abb. 
N.C.in. 

Canal Appraisers v. People, 17 Wend. 571, 
587. See Canal Commissioners v. People. 
Discussftd (Law governing territories- ceded 
or acquired) in 1 Kent Cum. 178, n. a. 
Cited (Grants enbracing rivers and streams 
above tide waters) in 3 Kent Com. 427, n. e, 
as stating the true rule of the common law. 
But see Id. 438, n. e. 

Canal B'k v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287. 
Followed (Recovery of amount of draft 
from one who has received it without au- 
thority) in Holtsinger v. Nat. Corn Exch. 
B'k, 6 AU. Pr. N. S. 299. Followed in 
Holt ». Ross, 59 Barb. 554, which was affd 
in 54 N. Y. 472, which see ; Batik of Com- 
merce v. Union B'k, SKY. 237. Explained 
in dissenting opinion of Ruggles, J., inGod- 
dard v. Merchant's B'k, 4 N. Y. 155, which 
affd 2 Sand. 247, 255, which see. Disting'd 
in Susquehanna Val. Nat. B'k r, Loomis, 85 
JV". Y. 207, 212. Applied in National B'k of 
North America v. Bangs, 106 Mass. 441 ; 
s. c, 8 Am. R. 349. Approved and followed 
in Schroeder v. Harvey, 75 III 638. In- 
cluded with notes in 1 Red/. & B. Lead. Cas. 
on Ii. of Exch. 643. Applied (Recovery of 
money paid under mistake of fact) in Gard- 
ner v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 26 Barb. 427; 
Talbot v. Bank of Rochester, 1 Hill, 205; 



CANAL BANK— CANDEE. 



131 



Kingston Bank ». Eltinge, 40 K 7. 391, 
395. Disting'd (Liability for money re- 
ceived) in Bixby v. Drexel, 56 How. Pr. 
482. 
Canal Bank v. Mayor of Albany, 9 Wend. 
244. Cited a3 authority (Impeaching report 
of commissioners) in Biggs v. Dickinson, 2 
Scam. {111.) 437; s. c, 35 Am. Dee. 113. 
Canal Commissioners y. People, 5 Wend. 
423. See Bellinger v. N. Y. Central R. R. 
Co. ; People v. Canal Appraisers. Cited 
with approval with Canal Appraisers v. 
People, 17 Wend. 571, 597 (Extent of 
riparian ownership) in Delaplaine v. Chicago 
& Northwestern R'y Co., 12 Wis. 214; s. c, 
24 Am. R. 386, 388. Cited as containing 
established rule in the State, — in 13 Gent. 
L. J. 3. Collated with other cases in Mills 
Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 47. Followed and 
approved with People v. Canal Appraisers, 
13 Wend. 335 ; Gardners. Trustees of New- 
burgh, 2 Johns. Oh.. 162, in Weaver v. Miss. 
& R. R. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 540. 

T. Tibbetts, 6 Cow. 518, 551, n. Rev'd 

in 5 Wend. 423. 
Canal St., Matter of, 11 Wend. 154. See 
Beekman St., Matter of; Bowery Extension 
case; Patchin v. Trustees of Brooklyn; 
Striker v. Kelly. Cited as ' authority 
(Limit of assessment for local improvements) 
in Tide-water Company v. Coster, 18 N. J. 
Eq. 518, 529. Disting'd and limited with 
Striker v. Kelly, 7 Mill, 9, 23 ; 2 Den. 323 
(Local assessments — when constitutional) in 
Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Penn. St. 140; 
s. c, 3 Am. R. 615, 621; People ex rel. 
Post 11. Brooklyn, 6 Barb. 209, being cited 
with approval. See also (Discontinuance) 
Matter of Washington Park, 50 N. Y. 144, 
155. 
Canal & Walker Streets, Matter of. See 
Boivery Extension case. Followed (Appeal 
in assessment proceedings) in Matter of 
Commissioners of Central Park, 61 Barb. 
45 ; 4 Lans. 467 ; 50 N. Y. 493. 
Caiiaudaigua & Niagara Falls R. R. Co. v. 
Payne, 10 Barb. 273. See Utica, &c. R. 
R. Co., Matter of. Followed and approved 
(Damages in case of land taken by railroad 
company) in Albany & Susquehanna R. R. 
Co. ■». Dayton, 10 Abb. Pr. H. S. 183, 185. 
Canceini v. People, 16 If. Y. 501. Explained 
(Juror, when disqualified by opinion) in dis- 
senting opinion of Daniels, J., in Lindsley 
v. People, 6 Park. Or. 243. Explained in 
.Greenfield v. People, 6 Abb. K 0. 1, 9. 
Also in dissenting opinion of Henry, J., in 
State ». Barton, 71 Mo. 300. Explained as 
modified by L. 1872, c. 475; L. 1873, c. 
427,— in Balbo v. People, 80 If. Y. 493. 
Applied (Evidence of character in criminal 
• cases) in Ryan v. People, 19 Abb. Pr. 232. 
Cited (Evidence of character in capital 
cases) in 52 Am. Dec. 738, n., as repudiat- 
ing the doctrine of Commonwealth v. Web- 
ster, 5 Oush. 295 ; and as approved in Har- 
rington v. State, 19 Ohio St. 264, 268. 
y. People, 18 If. Y. 128; s. c, more 



fully, 7 Abb. Pr. 271. ' See Stephens v. 
People. Applied (Irregularities that do not 
bar new trial) in People v. Reaglc, 00 
Birb. 527. Applied (Amending record in 
writ of error, in criminal cases) in Graham 
v. People, 03 Id 475. Followed (Ques- 
tions to be decided on writ of error) in 
Stephens v. People, 19 If. Y. 551. Explained 
in Willis v. People, 32 Id. 720. Disting'd 
(Waiver of'trial by jury) in People ex rel. 
Walker v. Special Sessions, 4 Hun, 444. 
Applied in Grants. People, 4 Park. Or. 534; 
People v. Rulloff, 5 Id. 81. Applied in dis- 
senting opinion of Mui.lin, J., in Knight v. 
Campbell, 02 Barb. 36. Followed in Terri- 
tory v. Ah Wah, 4 Mont. 149; £. c, 47 
Am. R. 341. See State v. Davis, 66 Mo. 
684; s. c, 27 Am. R. 387. Referred to in 
State v. Borowsky, 11 Nev. 119, 128, as op- 
posed to Commonwealth v. Dailey, 12 Oush. 
80, though followed and approved in Hill 
4>. People, 10 Mich. 354, the cases in N. Y. 
and Mich, being, however, disting'd as cases 
of murder. Disting'd on the ground of 
differences in constitutional provisions, — in 
Connelly e. State, 60 Ala. 89; s. c, 31 Am. 
R. 34, 30, with note. Considered and 
disting'd from question as to constitution- 
ality of act authorizing election for trial 
by court, in State v. Woi'den, 46 Conn. 349 ; 
s. c, 33 Am. R. 27, 32. Disting'd (Waiver 
in criminal case) in Pierson v. People, 18 
Man, 243, which was aff'd in 79 If. Y. 429; 
which see Vose v. Cockcrof t, 44 Id. 422 ; 
Connors v. People, 50 Id. 240 ; People v. 
Dohring, 59 Id. 380. Applied in Maurer v. 
People, 43 Id. 5 ; People v. Campbell, 4 
Park. Or. 388. Relied on in Lemons v. 
State, 4 W. Ya. 755 ; s. c, 6 Am. R. 293. 
Collated with People 1>. Dohring, 59 If. Y. 
374; Blend «. People, 41 Id. 004, and 
other cases (Conferring jurisdiction by con- 
sent) in 25 Am. U. 539, n. See (Waiver 
of defects in jury, after verdict) State v. 
Powciii, 10 Orcg. 145; s. c, 45 Am. 11. 
138. Applied (Effect of irregularities in 
criminal cases) in Blend v. People, 41 If. Y. 
604. Explained (New trial in criminal cases) 
in Shepherd v. People, 25 Id. 417. 

Candee v. Burke, 1 Hun, 540; s. c, ISup'm. 
Gt. (T. & 0.) 143. Further decision in 
10 Han, 350. With decision in 1 Hun 
compare (Naming mortgagee) Code Civ. Pro. 
§§ 2391, 2383, last clause. 

y. Giindelsheimer, 8 Abb. Pr. 435; 

s. c, 17 How. Pr. 434. Overruled (Supple- 
mentary proceedings on judgment in jus- 
tice's court) in Butts c. Dickinson, 12 Abb. 
Pr. 60 ; Vulte v. Whitehead, 2 Hilt. 596. 

y. Hayward, 34 Barb. 349. Aff'd in 37 

N. Y. 653. 

--— y. Lord, 2 If. Y. 269; s. c, 51 Am. Dec. 
294, with note, where it is said to have been 
frequently cited. Compared (Effect of judg- 
ment, as against creditors, &c.) in Luding- 
ton's Petition, 5 A bb. If. O. 323. Applied 
in McParland <s. Bain, 20 Hun, 38; Voorhees 
v. Seymour, 26 Barb. 585 ; Atkins v. Hosley, 



132 



CANDLEE— C AELTOU . 



3 Sutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 325. Approved in 
Hall v. Stryker, 27 K Y. 596. Applied 
(Creditors bound by debtor's contracts) in 
Miller «. Lewis, 4 Id. 559 ; Curtiss v. 
Leavitt, 15 Id. 51. Followed (Discretionary 
orders) in Lansing v. Russell, 2 Id. 563 ; 
Wakeman v. Price, 3 Id. 334; Howell v. 
Mills. 53 Id. 330. 

Candler v. Petit, 1 Paige, 427. An* d in 3 
W«nd. 618. 

v. Pettit, 1 Paige, 1C9 ; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 

399, with note. Approvingly cited witli 
Eager v. Price, 2 Paige, 333 (Additional 
relief through supplemental bill) in Allen v. 
Taylor, 2 Green Oh. (N. J.) 435; s. c, 29 
Am. Dec. 721, with note. 

Canfield v. Baltimore & 0. E. R. Co., 43 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 562. Rev'd in 75 JSf. Y. 
144. Decision in 75 N. Y. followed (Evi- 
dence as to where goods transported by car- 
rier were injured) in Schastey v. Bache, 9 
Daly, 484. 

T. Ford, 16 How. Pi: 473. Affd in 2S 

Barb. 336. See (Partition — parties) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1538, n: 

v. Westcbtt, 5 Cow. 270. Followed 

(Waiver of forfeiture for non-payment on a 
particular day) in Conkling v. King, 10 
Barb. 372, which was affd in 10 N. Y. 442, 
which see. Approved in Stuyvesant v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y., 1 Leg. Obs. 103. Followed 
(Avoiding clauses are for obligee's benefit) 
in Litchfield v. Irvin, 51 K Y. 58; Folts «. 
Huntley, 7 Wend. 214. Followed and ap- 
proved with Church v. Ayres, 5 Cow. 272, 
in Masons. Caldwell, 5 dim. (111.) 190; s. c, 
48 Am. Dec. 330, with note ; Wilcoxson v. 
Stitt, 65 Gal. 598. 

Cantrell v. Conner, 6 Daly, 39. Subsequent 
proceeding in 6 Daly, 224; s. c, 51 How. 
Pr. 45. See Hoy t v. Van Alstyne ; Twinan 
v. Swai't. 

Cantwell v. Dubuque, &c. R. R. Co., 17 
Sow. Pr. 16. Disapproved as contrary to 
authority (Place where cause of action on 
negotiable instrument arises) in Hiburnia 
B'k v. Mechanics', &o. B'k, 21 Ilun, 100, 174. 

Canzi v. Cornier, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & ^'.)569. 
Fully reported in 4 Abb. N. G. 148. 

Capet v. Parker, 3 Sandf. 662. Followed 
(Enjoining summary proceedings) iu Landon 
v. Superv's of Schenectady, 24 Hun, 75, 77. 
To the contrary, Smith v. Moffat, 1 Barb. 
65. 

Card v. Card, 39 K Y. 317. Relied on 
(Evidence admissible respecting agreement 
for purchase of land) in Dana v. Wright, 23 
Hun, 31, 32, 34. 

v. Miller, 1 nun, 504. Reviewed with 

McCaughey o. Smith, 27 N. Y. 39 ; Browuell 

! v. Minnie, 29 Id. 400, and other cases 
(Material alteration of note) in 23 Am. L. 
Reg. K S. 198. 

Cardell v. McNeil, 21 K Y. 336. SeoMallory 
v. Gillett; Milks v. Rich. Reluctantly fol- 
lowed (Guaranty — when not within statute 
of frauds) in Milks v. Rich, 80 K Y. 269, 
271. Followed with Bruce v. Burr, 67 Id. 



237, in Fitzgerald v. Morrissey, 14 N"eb. 
198; s. c, 40 Am. R. 296, n. ; Wilson a. 
Hcntges, 29 Minn. 105. 

Cardot v. Barney, 63 K Y. 281 ; s. c, 20 Am. 
R. 533, with note. Disting'd (Negligence — 
liability of receiver) in Kain v. Smith, 80 
iv". 7. 458, 469, 471. 

Cardwell v. Hicks, 23 How. Pr. 281 ; s. c, 
more fully, 37 Barb. 458. See Williams «. 
Smith. Said in Lorimer ». Stevens (Ct. of 
App.) 3 Alb. L. J. 97, to have been over- 
ruled by Brown v. Leavitt, 31 2T. Y. 113; 
Pratt v. Coman, 37 Id. 440. Disapproved 
(Extinguishment of old debt as consideration 
for new transfer) in Bank of State of N. Y. 
v. Vanderhorst, 1 liobt. 211, as contrary to 
authority. Applied (Limit of recovery by 
bona fide holder of note) in Ilolcomb v. 
Wyckoff, 35 2f. J. 35; s. c, 10 Am. R. 
219. 

v. Auburn Gas-Light Co., 22 Barb. 297. 

Collated with other cases (Negligence — 
allowing noxious or dangerous substances to 
injure neighboring lands) in 1 Thomps. on 
Negl. 107. 

— v. French. Hill & D. 17; s. c, 2 K 
Y. Leg, Obs. 367. Rev'd in 1 K Y. 96. 
See French" v. Carhart. 

Canovar v. Cooper, 3 Barb. 115. See Bur- 
lingame v. Burlingame; People «. Mercein. 
Examined with other cases (Infancy — 
emancipation) in 35 Am. R. 115, 118, n. 

Carl v. Ayers, 53 N. Y. 14. Applied (Evi- 
dence of probable cause) in Thompson o. 
Lumley, 1 Alb. K G. 261; Heyne v. Blair, 
62 If. Y. 22. Applied (Issue in action for 
malicious prosecution) iu Barber e. Gould, 20 
Hun, 440. 

Carle v. Uuderhill, 3 Brad/. 101, 105. Fol- 
lowed (Publication of will) iu Burk's Will, 
2 Red/. 239, 243 ; Neugent v. Neugent, Id. 
309, 373. 

Carletou v. Carleton, 23 Hun, 251. Rev'd 
in 85 K Y. 313. • Decision in 85 K Y. fol- 
lowed (Affidavit to obtain service by publi- 
cation) and Smith v. Mahon, 2 Civ. Pro. R. 
(Browne) 55, distiug'd in Greenbaum v. 
Dwyer, 4 Id. 276. Followed in Kennedy 
e. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 32 Hun, 35. 
Disting'd iu Lock wood v. Brantly, 31 Id. 
155. 

v. Darcy, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 373. 

Appeal dismissed in 75 N. Y. 375. Subse- 
quent decision in 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
484, rev'd.in 90 K Y. 566. Decision in 75 
N. Y. discussed (Ejectment — new trial) in 
Sedgw. & PP. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 583. 
See Code Cio. Pro. 1881, § 1525, n. Decis- 
ion in 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.), explained 
(Comptroller of municipal corporation — 
signature by) in 1 Add. on Gontr. 226, n. 1, 
Abb. cd. 

Carlton. Matter of, 7 Cow. 471. Overruled 
(Validity of enlistment) in Phelan's Case, 9 
Mb. Pr. 286, 288. Disapproved, and held 
to bo overruled (Habeas corpus) in Reilly's 
Case, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 334. ' 

Carlton St., Matter of, 16 Hun, 497. Aft'd 



CARMAN- CARPENTER. 



133 



as Matter of City of Brooklyn, 78 K Y. 
302. See Widening Carlton St., Matter of. 

Carman v. Melncrow, 13 S. Y. 70. Fol- 
lowed (Mechanic's lien-^when not acquired 
by one doing labor or furnishing materials) 
in Lumbard v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R. 
Co., 55 A 7 . Y. 491, 494. Applied in Crane 
«. Gcnin, 60 K Y. 127, 129. 

v. Plass, 23 N. Y. 286. Followed 

(Joinder of surety as co-defendant with prin- 
cipal) in Decker v. Gaylord, 8 IJun, 110. 
Disapproved in Pomeroy on Rem. § 410. 

v. Pultz, 21 N. Y. 547. Applied (Pre- 
sumptions indulged in by Court of Appeals) 
in Reese v._ Boese, 94 A 7 ". Y. 623 ; Reformed 
Prot. Dutch Church v. Brown, 4 Abb. Ct. 
App. Lee. 34. Disting'd in Meyer i>. 
Amidon, 45 N. Y. 169, 172. Re-affd 
(Review of questions of fact) in Rice v. 1s- 
Ij-tn, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Lee. 41. Applied 

, (Review of referees' decision by appellate 
court) in Heroy v. Kerr, 8 Boew. 204; Hoyt 
v. Hoyt, Id. 521. Applied (Vendees to be 
regarded as one party) to mortgagees, — in 
People v. Keyser, 28 A' Y. 235. Applied 
in Havens- «. Patterson, 43 Id. 222. Dis- 
ting'd (Waiver by purchaser of real estate) 
in Morange «. Morris, 2 A bb. Ct. App. Dee. 
320. Applied in Bigler v. Morgan, 77 If. 
Y. 319. Disting'd (Waiver of objection) in 
Rae e. Harteau, 7 Daly, 102. Applied in 
Moses v. Bierling, 31 N. Y. 464. 

Carinichael v. Carmicliacl, 1 Abb. Ct. App. 
Lee. 309. Explained (Vesting) in Meyer's 
Will, 6 Abb. N. C. 438. 444. 

Games v. Piatt, 6 Robt. 270. On second 
trial plaintiff had judgment, which was 
affd in 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 42; s. c, 1 
Sweeny, 140; 38 How. Pr. 100. This de- 
cision rev'd in 2 Abb. Ct. App. Lee. 159. 
n., on the ground that the question of. 
delivery should have been submitted to 
the jury. Subsequent decision in 36 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 301; s. c, 15 Abb. 
Pr. N. S. 337; 46 How. Pr. 520; affd in 
59 N. Y. 405. Further decision on the 
merits in 41 Super. Ct. (J. & S. ) 435 ; and 
as to taxation of costs, in 40 Id. 205. Decis- 
ion in 1 Sweeny explained and the report 
corrected in decision in 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 
Decision in 6 Eobt. followed (Question when 
not objectionable, as calling for conclusion 
of law) in Rocke v. Meiner, 34 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 158. Decision in 36 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) disting'd (Examination by appellate 
court of question of weight of evidence) in 
Peck 11. Cohen, 40 Id. 142, 145. And see 
to the contrary Halpin v. Third Ave. R. 
R. Co., Id. 175. Cited (Communications 
by a client to a lawyer) iu 1 Whart. Com. 
on Ev. § 583, as holding the true view. 

Carolus v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 6 Bosw. 15. 
Collated, with other cases (Negligence — 
munioipal corporation — defective highways) 
in 2 Thomps. on Negl. 708. 

Carow v. Mowatt, 2 Edio. 59. Disting'd 
(Enforcing liability of sureties of etecutor 
or. administrator) in Hood v. Hood, 85 A. Y. 



Weekly Dig. 227. 
s. c, 37 Am. R. 
Washer «. Bullitt 



501, 573. Applied in Trust, &c. Co. of 
Onondaga •«. Pratt, 25 Hun, 23, 27 ; Wil- 
liams «. Kiernan, Id. 362 ; Haines v. Meyer, 
Id. 417. Applied to sureties of trustee in 
Brooks v. Brooke, 12 OiU & J. (Md.) 303 ; 
s. c, 38 Am. Lee. 310, 316, with note. 
Cited (Liability of infant executor or 
administrator) in Tyler on Inf. & Cov. 2 ed. 
§ 180. 

Carpenter v. Atherton, 28 How. Pr. 303. 
See to the contrary (Right to discharge con- 
tract to pay in gold or silver, by payment 
in U. S. legal tender notes) Wilson v. Morgan, 
30 How. Pr. 386. 

v. Bailey. See Gazly v. Priee. 

v. Bell, 19 Abb. Pr. 258, 263. Followed 

(Defendant's right to set up matter arising 
after suit brought) in Reimer v. Doerge, 61 
Bow. Pr. 143. 

v. Blake, 00 Barb. 488. Rev'd in 50 

A 7 ! Y. 096. Further decision in 10 Hun, 
358. Also former decision on other facts in 
2 law. 206. Decision in 2 Lans. disting'd 
(Opinion by witness as to testimony that he 
has heard) in Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 
178. 

v. Butterfield, 8 Johns. Cas. 145. Ex- 
plained (Set-off) in Taylor v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 82 N. Y. 23. 

v. City of Cohoes, 5 

Affd in 81 N. Y. 21; 
468. See also (Bridges) 
County, 110 V. S. 558. 

v. Danforth, 19 Abb. Pr. 225. Further 

decision in 52 Barb. 581. Decision in 19 
Abb. Pr. explained (Retaining injunction 
where plaintiff's allegations are denied) in 
Secor ■». Weed, 7 Robt. 67. Decision in 52 
Barb, explained (Director of corporation 
as trustee) in Mitchell v. Vermont Copper 
Mining Co., 47 How. Pr. 222. Followed 
and approved, and Robinson v. Smith, 3' 
Paige, 222; Verplank v. Mercantile Ins. 
Co., 1 Edw. 84; Scott ts. Depeyster, Id. 513, 
527: Cumberland Coal, &c. Co. v. Sherman, 
30 Barb. 553; Butts e. Woods, 38 Id. 181 ; 
Bliss v. Matteson, 45 N. Y. 22, disting'd, in 
Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe 
County *. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509; s. c, 15 
Am. R. 245, 251. Considered question- 
able in Story on Eq. Jur. 11 ed. § 229, 
I, n. 1. Cited in 12 Alb. L. J. 195, as hold- 
ing what is the true rule, affirmed in numer- 
ous cases. 

v. Eastern Transp. Line, 67 Barb. 570. 

Affd in 71 N. Y. 574, as Carpenter v. East- 
ern Transp. Co. Decision in 71 N. Y. dis- 
ting'd (Opinion of witness) in Brink b. 
Hanove.- Fire Ins. Co., 80 K Y. 108, 116. 

v. Goodwin, 4 Laly, 89. See to the 

contrary (Vacatur of judgment must be 
specullv pleaded) Kinsey ■». Ford, 38 Barb. 
1 95. And see Abb. Tr. Ev. 539. 

T. Green. 4 Hun, 416; s. c, 6 Sup'm. 

Ct. (T. & C.) 550. Compare (Appeal in 
summary proceedings) Code Ci" Pro. 
§§ 1340, 1357, 2122, subd. 2. 

v.- Grillln, 9 Paige, 310. Followed and 



134 



CARPENTER. 



approved (Distinction between sale and bail- 
ment) in Reed v. Abbey, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 

6 ft) 381. 

T. Halsey, 60 Barb. 45. Aff'd, it seems, 

in 57 N. Y. 657. 

T. Herri ngton, 25 Wend. 370; s. c, 37 

Am. Dec. 239, with note. Compare (Ex- 
emption of growing crops from levy) King 
v: Moore, 10 Mich: 538. 

v. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., 4 Sand/. Ch. 

408. Relied on (Effect of mere contract to 
insure) in Cooper v. Pacific Mutual Ins. Co., 

7 Nev. 116 ; s. c, 8 Am. B. 705. 

v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 11 Bow. 

Pr. 481. Explained (Necessity for appear- 
ance by defendant) in Pearl v. Robitschek, 
2 Bali/, 50. 

v. Nixon, 5 Hill, 260. Doubted (Con- 
viction of petty larceny as impeaching evi- 
dence) in Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 472. 
Questioned in Wilson v. State, 1 Smith 
(Wise.) 193. Cited in 1 Whart. Com. on. 
Ev. § 397, n., with contrary decisions from 
other jurisdictions. 

v. O'Dougherty, 67 Barb. 397; s. c, 

with affirmance, in 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
427. Aff'd in 58 N. Y. 681, it seems, but 
without opinion. Decision in 2 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & ft) followed (Estoppel to set up 
invalidity of mortgage) in Barnett v. 
Zacharias, 24 Bun, 304, 306. 

v. Oswego and Syracuse R. R. Co. , 24 

IT. Y. 655. See Bisscll v. N. Y. Central R. 
Co. ; Jackson v. Hathaway. Followed (Ap- 
propriation of highway for railroad— an 
additional burden) in Craig -a. Rochester 
City, &c. R. R. Co., 39 Barb. 494, which 
was affd in 39 N. Y. 104, which see; Wager 
v. Troy Union R. R. Co., 25 K Y. 526, 532. 
534. Collated, with other cases, m Cook 
Bighw. L. 4 ed. 18. Limited in People «. 
Kerr, 27 N. Y. 206. Applied (Such appro- 
priation is a uisseizin) in Henderson v. N. 
Y. Central R. R. Co., 17 Bun, 348. Fol- 
lowed (Ejectment for land under highway) 
in Lozier v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 42 
Barb. 469. Disting'd (Judgment without 
qualification for exclusive possession in 
ejectment) in White's Bank of Buffalo v. 
Nichols, 64 W. Y. 75. Disting'd (Equitable 
relief against trespass) in Troy & Bost. R. 
R. Co. v. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel & W. R'y 
Co., 86 JV. Y. 127. 

v. Ottley, 2 Lam. 451. Approved (Parol 

evidence respecting interest in land) in 
Moyer v. Moyer, 21 Bun, 67, 73. 

v. Roe, 10 N~. Y. 227. Followed 

(Evidence of fraudulent conveyance) in 
Loeschigk v. Addison, 19 Abb. Pr. 187; 
Pendleton v. Hughes, 65 Barb. 144 ; Savage 
v. Murphy, 8 Bosw. 98; Hawley *. Sackett, 
6 Sup'm. Ct.(T.& ft) 322. Cited as au- 
thority in D3'gert v. Rcmerschnider, 32 N. 
Y. 648. Explained in Tappan v. Butler, 7 
Bosw. 490. Disting'd in Spicer ». Ayers, 
53 Bow. Pr. 405; Carr ». Breese, 81 N. Y. 
090. Disting'd and applied in Babcock v. 



Eckler, 24 N. Y. 629. Explained in Wait 
on Fraud. Conv. §§ 95, 102. 

y. Secor, 1 1 How. Pr. 403. See, in ac- 
cord therewith (Limitations upon testimony 
of adverse party) Evans v. Burbank, 12 Id. 
73 ; but see adverse thereto Burgart v. Stork, 
12 Id. 559. 

v. Shinier, 24 Hun, 464. Followed 

(Statute, when to act prospectively) in Wil- 
liams v. City of Oswego, 25 Bun, 36, 38. 

v. Simmons. See Hull v. Carnley. 

v. Spooner, 2 Sandf. 717. Followed 

with Goupil v. Simonson, 3 Abb. Pr. 474 
(Deceit in making service of process) in Peel 
v. January, 35 Ark 331 ; s. c, St Am. B. 27. 

v. Stevens, 12 Wend. 589. Disapproved 

(Damages in replevin) as wrong in principle, 
and contradicted by Rowley v. Gibbs, 14 
Johns. 385, and other authorities, in Suy- 
dam v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. 64A. Reviewed 
with Suydam v. Jenkins ; Yates v. Fassett, 
5 Den. 21; Rowley v. Gibbs, 14 Johns. 385 
(Effect of death of animal pending replevin) 
in De Thomas v. Witherby, 61 Col. 97, and 
the later cases, holding death not a defense, 
approved, — citing Wells on Replevin, §§ 
600, 601; 2 Sedgw. on Dama. 500. See 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1735, n. 

v. Stillwell, 12 Barb. 128. Rev'd in 11 

N. Y. 61. Effect of judgments herein held 
not binding on defendant in subsequent 
decision, in Wilson v. Davol, 5 Bosw. 621. 
See Dezell v. Odell; Frost v. Yonkers Sav-' 
ings B'k. Decision in 11 IT. Y. reaff'd 
(Practice in taking exceptions) in Chamber- 
lain v. Pratt, 33 if. Y. 52. Applied (Sher-'. 
iff cannot execute process for or against 
himself) to process against his deputy, — 
in Holbrook v. Brennan, 6 Daly, 46, 49. 
Both decisions disting'd and applied in 
Albany City Nat. Bk. v. Kearney, 9 Hun,' 
535. 

v. Ward, 30 K Y. 243. Applied (Irrele- 
vant statement of witness not to be contra- 
dicted) in Gandolfo v. Appleton, 40 N. Y. 
539 ; Stape v. People, 21 Bun, 399. 

v. West, 5 Bow. Pr. 53. Approved 

(Party, when entitled to have matter stricken 
out of pleading) in Williams ». Hayes, 5 
Bow. Pr. 470, 475. 

v. Whitman, 15 Johns. 208. See People 

v. Kling. Collated with other cases (Main- 
tenance of bastard children) in 56 Am. Dec. 
259, n. 

v. Willett. See Carpentier v. Willett. 

v. Wright, 4 Bosw. 655. Disting'd with 

Pacific Mail Co. v. Leuling, 7 Abb. Pr. KS. 
37 (Damages sustained by granting of in- 
junction) in N. Y. West Shore & B. R. R. 
Co. v. Omerod, 29 Bun, 274. Cited with 
Palmer e. Foley, 2 Abb. N. C. 192 ; Metho- 
dist Churches of N. Y. ■». Barker, 18 N. Y.' 
465; Wilde v. Joel, 15 Bow. Pr. 327, in 
Hay den v. Keith, 32 Minn. 279. Disting|d 
(Requisites of determination that plaintiff 
was not entitled to injunction) in Neugent 
v. Swan, 61 Brno. Pr. 40. 



CARPENTIER— CARTER 



135 



Carpentier v. Mintnrn, 65 Barb. 293 ; Same 
0. Same, 6 Lang. 56. Affd in effect in 55 N. 
Y. 676, as Hall v. Minturn. Compare (For- 
eign statute of limitations no bar here (Code 
Civ. Pro. % 390. 

v. Willet, 6 Bom. 25 ; s. a, 18 How. 

Pr. 400. Affd in 1 Keyes, 510; s. a, 1 
Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 312; s. a, as Carpenter 
v. Willett, 31 .N. Y. 90 ; 28 How. Pr. 225. 
Subsequent decision as to double costs in 3 
Biobt. 700 ; s. c, 28 Bow. Pr. 376. 
Can- v. Breese, 18 Eun, 134. Rev'd in 81 
If. Y. 584. Decision in 81 N. Y. quoted 
and discussed (Debtor's alienations of prop- 
erty — proof necessary to overturn) in Wait 
on Fraud. Conv. § 102. 

v. Carr, 4 Lam. 314. Affd in 52 If. Y. 

251. Decision-in 52 If. Y. applied (Effect of 
conveyance absolute in form, as mortgage) in 
Bowery Nat. B'k v. Duncan, 12 Bun, 408; 
Umfreville v. Keeler, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 
C.) 489 ; Pardee 0. Treat, 82 N. Y. 385, 392. 
Disting'd in Fullerton v. McCurdy, 55 If. Y. 
637, 639. Approved in Starks 0. Redfield, 
52 Wis. 352. Followed (Once a .mortgage, 
always a mortgage) in Meighen 0. King, 16 
Northw. Rep. 702. Disting'd (Verbal agree- 
ment respecting real estate) in dissenting 
opinion of Leabned, J., in Bissell v. Har- 
rington, 18 Bun, 87. Cited as authority 
(Effect of assent to submission of question 
to jury) in Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 
Bun, 695. Compare (Ejectment by mort- 
gagee) Code Civ. Pro. § 1498. 

v. Ellison, 20 Wend. 178. Applied 

(Covenant for renewal of lease) in Banker 0. 
Brake?, 9 Abb. If. C. 411, 414. 

Great Western Ins. Co., 3 Daly, 160. 

Applied (Discovery) in Schepmoes v. Bous- 
son, 1 Abb. If. C. 481. 485. 

v. Roach, 2 Duer, 20. Qualified 

(Merging antecedent stipulations in deed) 
in Morris v. Whitcher, 20 If. Y. 41. 
Carrington v. Ward. 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 

571. Affd ia,71 N. Y. 300. 
Carris v. Comm'rs of Waterloo, 2 Bill, 443. 
Explained (Regularity of proceedings for 
alteration of highway) in People ex rel. 
Dorn v. Jones, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 362. 
Carroll v. Carroll, 2 Bun, 609; s. c, G 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 294; 1G Abb. Pr. If. 
S. 239. Rev'd in 60 If. Y. 121; s. c, 19 
Am. It. 144, with note. Decision in 60- 
N, Y. cited (Letters of administration on 
estate of person when inadmissible to prove 
his death) in 2 Whart. Com. on En. § 810. 
Also cited in § 1278, on a like point. 

v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 40 Barb. 292. 

Affd in 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 166; s. c, 1 Abb. . 
Ct. App. Dec. 316. Prior decision in %HJ3arb. 
292. Decision in 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. cited as 
authority (Waiver by insurance agent) in 
Pitney v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co., 65 If. Y. 
23; Goodwin v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 
73 Id. 491. Disting'd in Walsh !i. Hartford 
Fire Ins. Co., 73 If. Y. 11. Explained in 
. Mersereau0. Phoenix Mut.' Life Ins. Co., 00 
N. Y. 278, 283. See other cases collected 



(Testimony of parties) in 1 Abb. If. C. 356, 
365, n. Decision in 38 Barb, cited as au- 
thority (Effect of renewal of policy to create 
new contract) in St. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. 
Merchant's Ins. Co., 11 Eun, 112. Followed 
(Waiver of forfeiture) in Steen v. Niagara 
Fire Ins. Co., 61 Bow. Pr. 144, 148 ; Shear- 
man «.' Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 531. 

T. Cone, 40 Barb. 220. Said in Baker v. 

Kenworthy, 41 If. Y. 215, to have been 
affd in Ct. of /A pp., March, 1869. 

v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 5 Barb. 

613. Opposed (Usury arising from differ- 
ence of interest) in Mumford v. American 
Life Insurance Company, 4 If. Y. 463, 475. 

v. Fiuley, 26 Barb. 61. See (Attach- 
ment — certificate of interest) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 651, n. 

v. Newton, 17 Bow. Pr. 189. Collated 

with Fobes «. Shattuck, 22 Barb. 568, and 
other cases (Manure as part of realty) in 28 
Am. R. 39, n. 

t. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 1 

Duer, 571. See Edgerton v. N. Y. & Har- 
lem R. R. Co. Disting'd (Contributory 
negligence in passenger riding in unusual 
position) in Spooncr 0. Brooklyn City R. R. 
Co., 31 Barb. 419, 429. Cited, with 
approval in Creed v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 
86 Pa. St. 139; s. c, 27 Am. R. 693, 697. 
Disting'd in Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. 
Langdon, 92 Pa. St. 32, citing Robertson 
«. Erie R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 91. 

v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 32. 

Affd, in 58 If. Y. 126; s. c, 17 Am. R. 
221. See Merritt v. Earle. Decisfon in 58 
If. Y. followed (Violation of Sunday law no 
bar to action for injuries) in Platz v. City of 
Cohoes, 24 Bun, 101. Thought, in 12 
Am. Dec. 294, n., to furnish the correct rule 
taken in connection with other decisions there 
cited. Cited-as indicative of the N. Y. rule 
in Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 Iowa, 652 ; s. c, 
30 Am. R. 414, with note. See, also, 17 
Am. R. 122, n. Approved and followed in 
Opsahl v. Judd, 30 Minn. 129. 

v. Upton, 2 Sand/. 171. Affd in 3 

If. Y. 272. 

Carsliore v. Huyck, 6 Barb. 583. See 
Soulden v. Van Rensselaer. Approved (Dis- 
tinction between statute which discharges 
debt and one w'hich acts on remedy) in 
Waltermire 0. Westover, 14 If. Y. 16. 
Quoted (Statute of Limitations — part pay- 
ment) in Ang. on Limit. % 247, n. 1, ed. 

Carson v. Murray, 3 Paige, 483. Followed 
(Wife cannot release her dower to husband) 
in Guidet 0. Brown, 54 Bow. Pr. 409. 

Carstens v. Barnstorff, 11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 
442. See (Acknowledgment by attorney, 
of satisfaction of judgment) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 1260, n. 

Carter v. Clark, 2 Sweeny, 189. Compare 
(Dismissal of complaint for failure to bring 
cause to trial) Winchell 0. Martin, 14 Abb. 
Pr. K S. 47. 

f. Dolby, 2 Bun, 523. Affd, it seems, 

in 13 N. Y. 631, but without opinion. 



136 



CARTER— GARY. 



v. Hamilton, 11 Barb. 147. Rev'd in 

Seld. Notes, No. 6, 80. 

■ v. Hammett, 18 Bai-b. 608. Disting'd 

(Assignment of lease) in Tates. McCorraick, 
23 Hun, 218, 221. Criticised in Welsh v. 
Schuyler, 6 Daly, 412, 415. 

V. Hunt, 40 Barb. 89. Sec (Action to 

recover real property — parties defendant) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 1503, n. 

v. Long-, 25 Hun, 57, 59. Abridgt. in 

12 Weekly Dig. 364. 

— — v. People, 2 Hill, 317. Overruled (Evi- 
dence of good character of witness — when 
inadmissible) in People v. Gay, 7 iV. Y. 378. 
See People v. Hulse, 3 Hill, 309. 

v. Rockett, 8 Paige, 437. See Crom- 
well v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co. Followed 
(Equitable lien on insurance moneys) in 
Cromwell b. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 44 A r . F. 
42, 50. Cited as authority in Wheeler v. 
Ins. Co., Ill U. S. 439, 442. 

T. Simpson, 7 Johns. 535. Applied 

(Rights of purchaser at judicial sales) in 
Jackson «. Hasbrouck, 12 Johns. 215. 
Reviewed and relied on, with Yates v. St. 
. John, 12 Wend. 74; Earl v. Camp, 16 
Id. 566, in Power v. Kindschi, 58 Wis. 
539; s. c, 46 Am. R. 652. 

v. Wernef , 27 How. Pr. 385. See Sim- 
mons v. Sherman. Denied with Monroe v. 
Monroe, 27 How. Pr. 208 (Appeal in pro- 
. ceedings commenced in justice's court) in 
Broughton v. Mitchell, 19 Abb. Pf. 106 ; 
Broughton v. Mitchell being l-eluctantly fol- 
lowed on this point in Bliss v. Schaub, 48 
Barb. 342, where the doctrine of Carter v. 
Werner is preferred. 

v. Youngs, 42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 169. 

Further proceeding in Id. 418. 

Cartwright v. Wilmerding, 24 JV. Y. 521. 
See Jennings v. Merrill. -Disting'd (Pos- 
session that enables factor in pledge) in 
Howland v. Woodruff, 60 N. Y. 73, 83. 
Followed in Pegram v. Carson, 10 Bosw. 
511. Applied in Bates v. Cunningham, 12 
Hun, 29. Applied to pledge by purchaser, 
—in Winne •». McDonald, 39 K Y. 244. 
Applied (Constructive possession of goods 
stored in bonded warehouse) in Schwerin v. 
McKie, 5 Robt. 418. Quoted (Factor's act) 
in Benj. on Sales, § 19, n. 11 (Corbin's 4 
Am. ed.). 

Carver v. Creque, 46 Barb. 507. Aff d in 48 
XT. Y. 385. Decision in 48 2V. Y. disting'd 
(Validity of contracts relating to bounties) 
in Decker v. Saltsman, 1 Hun, 424, which 
was aff d in 59 N. Y. 275, 279, which see. 

v. Lane, 4 K D. Smith, 168, 170. 

Quoted (Statute of Frauds — goods over fifty 
dollars — acceptance) in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 

. 141, n. 3 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

Carvey v. Rider, 2 Cow. 617. 'See Lydd v. 
Kenney; Sheridan v. Genet. Followed 
(" Costs to abide event") in Mott v. Con- 
sumer's Ice Co,, 8 Daly, 244. 

Carville v. Crane, 5 Hill, 483; s. c, 40 
Am. Dec. 364, with note, collecting cita- 
tions thereof. Quoted and collated with other 



cases (Statute of Frauds — conside ation or. 
promise to be in writing) in Holcombe Lead. 
Cos. on Com. Law, 426. Quoted and dis- 
cussed (Guaranties) in Browne on Stat, of 
Frauds, § 174, 4 ed. 

Cary v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co., 29 
Barb. 35. See Bostwick v. Champion; 
Weed v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co. 
Followed (Carrier's liability as warehouse- 
man) in Burnell v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 
45 N. Y. 184. Commented upon and coni- 
pared in Ang. on Carr. § 114, n. a, 5 cd. 
Disting'd (Contract by carrier beyond hik 
line) in Milnor v. N. Y. & New Havon.R. 
R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363, 370. Quoted and 
collated, with other cases, in Field on Ultra 
Vires, 113. 

v. Gruinan, 4 Hill, 625 ; s. c, 40 Aiti. 

Dee. 299, with note, wherein it is said to 
have been extensively cited and approved in 
N. Y., and to be in accordance with the 
doctrine maintained in other States. See 
Voorhees v. Earle. Examined (Rempdy for 
breach of warranty without fraud) in Gatey 
v. Rountree, 2 Chand. ( Wise.) 43. Rule of 
damages herein, said in Passinger v. Thof- 
burn, 34 N~. Y. 634, to rest on sound prin- 
ciples and to be settled by this case and 
Voorhees v. Earle, 2 Hill, 288. Disting'd 
in Flannagan v. Maddin, 81 N. Y. 623. 
Quoted and explained in 3 Pars, on Contri 
211, n. x. Explained (Sales — mistake and 
failure of consideration) in 1 Benj. on Sales, 
§ 626 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. Gregory, 38 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 127.. 

Mem. of further proceeding in Id. 566. 
Cited (Contracts of executors and* admin- 
istrators) in Ross ». Harden, 44 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 26. 

v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 311 ; s. c, 37 Am, 

Dec. 323, with note; 15 .V. Y. Com. I. Lam- 
ed. 140, with brief note. 'See Mowry v. 
Walsh. Applied (Evidence of frauds similar 
to that in issue) in Van Kleek v. Leroy, 4 
Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 481, which affd87itofl. 
544, which see. Applied in French a. White, 
5 Duer, 259 ; Bruen v. Bruen, 4 Edm. 040, 
Disting'd in Murfey v. Brace, 23 Barb. 564; 
Strong v. Place, 4 Robt. 393. Examine^ 
with other cases in People v. Shulman, 80 
N. Y. 375, n. Reaffd in Olmsted v. Jlotail- 
ing, 1 Hill, 317. Cited as an authority in 

. Whart. Com. on E%. § 33, n. Limited 
(Replevin as -concurrent remedy with tres- 
pass) in Brockway v. Burnap, 12 Barb. SBp. 
Cited as authority in Brockway ». Burnap, 
16 Barb. 313. Disapproved with Olmstead 
v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 311, 317, in Roberts v. 
Randel, 3 Sandf. 707, but followed and ex- 
plained in Drake v. Wakefield, 11 How. Pr. 
108, notwithstanding Roberts v. Randel. 
Applied (Trover, &c. for goods obtained by 
fraud) in Townsend v. Bogart, 11 Abb. Pr. 
360; McKnight v. Morgan, 2 Bark 173; 
Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Hill, 159. Applied 
to case of goods received on usurious con- 
tract — in Schroeppel v. Corning, 5 Den. ^43. 
Limited in Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill, 348. 



CAKY— CASE. 



137' 



Applied (Right to waive tort and sue in as- 
sumpsit) in Abbotts. Blossom, 66 Barb. 355. 
Approved (What is fraud on vendor) in Van 
Neste n. Conover, 20 Barb. 548. Limited 
(Effect of sale procured by fraud, in divest- 
ing title or possession) in Stevens v. Hyde, 
32 Barb. 175, 179. 

v. Schoharie Valley Machine Co., 2 

Hun, 110; s. c, with opinion, 4 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & C.) 285. 

v. White, 7 Bans. 1. Eev'd in 52 N. Y. 

138. Further decision in 59 N. Y. 336. See 
Hatch t>. Peugnet. Decision in 02 If. Y. 
disting'd (Extension of time as valuable 
consideration") in Mutual Life Ins. Co. i>. 
Smith, 23 Hun, 540. Followed in Van 
Etten ». Troudden, 67 Barb. 345. Applied 
in Beard v. Root, 4 Hun, 356; Sullivan 
Savgs. Inst. v. Young, 55 Iowa. 134. Ex- 
plained in Grocer's B'k v. Penfield, 7 Bun, 
282. Disting'd in Hubbard v. Gurney, 64 
If. Y. 457, 468. Reviewed with other cases 
in Maier v. Canavan, 8 Daly, 272, 275. 
Disting'd (Who purchaser in good faith and 
for value) in Union Dime Savings Institution 
«. Uuryea, 67 If. Y. 87. Decision in 59 If. Y. 
explained and distinguished (Personal trans- 
actions with deceased) in Ross v. Harden, 
42 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 427. Followed in 
Witthaus ii. Schack, 24 Hun, 331. Followed 
(Evidence of communication made by de- 
ceased to third party) in Patterson v. Cope- 
land, 52 How. Pr. 465; Hildebrandt v. 
Crawford, 65 If. Y. 111. Applied in Kale n. 
Elliott, 18 Hun, 198; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 
.20 /& 109. Disting'd in Head n. Teeter, 
10 Id. 548; Bragueu. Lord, 41 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 196. To the contrary (Exclusion 
of assignor as witness) Lyon n. Snyder, 61 
Barb. 172. See also Abb. Tr. En. 64. 
Caryl v. McElrath, 3 Sandf. 176, 179. Ex- 
plained (Corporations — agents) in Ang. & A. 
on Corp.% 298, 11 ed. 

v. Russell, 18 Barb. 429. Rev'd in 13 

A: Y. 194. 

Dase of . See the name of the party in its 

alphabetical place in this table. 
3ase v. Abeel, 1 Paige, 393. See Williams v. 
Wilson. Explained (Partnership — surviving 
partner's rights) in 2 Colly er on Partn. § 623, 
n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. 
v. Boughton, 11 Wend. 106. See Lang- 
don v. Buel. Applied (Debt not extinguished 
by foreclosure) to case of forfeiture of stock, 
in Herkimer M. & H. Co. v. Small, 21 Wend. 
276. Cited (Effect of recital of object of 
mortgage) in Haskins n. Kelly, 1 Robt. 175, 
as contrary to doctrine there stated. Ap- 
plied (Inquiring into consideration of sealed 
instrument) in WHson n. Baptist Education 
Soc. of N.Y., 10 Barb. 312. Examined in 
Mann v. Eckford, 15 Wend. 519. Followed 
as settled law in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 
Sun, 207. Followed (Effect of possession 
taken by mortgagee of chattels in satisfying 
debt) in Stoddard n. Denison, 2 Sweeny, 62. 
Shown in 2 Am. Bee. 78, n., to bo, with 
Meyer v. Amidon, 45 If. Y. 169; Simar v. 



Canaday, 53 Id. 298. limited (Liability for 
honestly making false statement) by the 
well settled principle stated in Bennett v. 
Judson, 21 If. Y. 138; Meyer n. Amidon. 
Criticised (Plea, when an answer to the 
whole declaration) in Sterry v. Schuyler, 23 
Wend. 487. Cited as authority in Sheldon 
«r. Lewis, 97 111. 644. 

v. Buckley, 15 Wend. 327. Collated with. 

other cases (Charge of crime involving 
moral turpitude) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. 
Cos. 99. 

De Goes, 3 Cai. 261. See Wickham «. 

Freeman. Followed (Limitations upon doc- 
trine of trespass by relation) in Van Brunt 
v. Schenck, 11 Johns. 384. 

v. Haight. See Arthur n. Case. 

v. Hall, 24 Wend. 102. See Vibbard v. ' 

Johnson. Followed (Breach of warranty in 
sale of chattels) in Gross n. Kierski, 41 Gal. 
Ill, 116. Applied (Recovery for breach of 
warranty) in Converse n. Miner, 21 Hun, 
367, 374. Approved in Bordwell vs. Collie, 
45 N. Y. 496. Followed with Delaware 
B'k o. Jarvis, 20 Wend. 226 ; Burt ». Dewey, 
40 Id. 283; Bordwell n. Collie, 45 If. Y. 
■ 495 ; McGiffin n. Baird, 62 Id. 329, in 
O'Brien v. Jones, 91 If. Y. 193. Examined 
and followed (Action for price of chattels, 
defeated by seller's fraud, without actual 
ouster) in Sweetman v. Prince, 62 Barb. 256, 
which was, however, rev'd in 26 If. Y. 224. 

v. Hotchkiss, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dee. 324. 

See Murray n. Toland. 

v. Mechanics' Banking Assoc, 4 If. Y. 

166. Disting'd (Liability of principal on 
note executed by agent without authority) 
in Storrs n. Flint, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
517. 

v. People, 14 Hun, 503. Rev'd in 76 

If. Y. 242 ; s. a, more fully, Abb. If. 0. 151. 
Decision in 76 N. Y. approved (Formalities 
necessary to an oath) in O'Reilly v. People, 
86 If. Y. 154, 160, which rev'd 9 Abb. If. 
C. 83, 88, which see. Considered extreme 
(Interference with verdict of jury in criminal 
cases) in Levy v. People, 19 Sun, 383, 388. 

v. Phelps, 39 If. Y. 1-64. Disting'd with 

Carpenter n. Roe, 10 Id. 227 (Conveyance of 
husband's property to wife, when fraudulent) 
in Carr v. Breese, 81 If. Y. 589 ; Spicer 
». Ayers, '53 How. Pr. 405. Quoted in 
Wait on Fraud. Conn. § 100. 

r. Potter, 8 Johns. 211. Criticised, with 

Vosburgh !>. Thayer, 12 Id. 465 (Accounts 
as evidence) in Conklin n. Stamler, 2 Hilt. 
422, 425. Disting'd in Burke v. Wolfe, 38 
Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 263, 272. 

v. Price, 9 'Abb. Pr. 111. Approved 

(Witness-fees a disbursement) in Dunham 
ii. Sherman, 11 Id. 152, 154. Opposed, in 
Bronner n. Frauenthal, 12 Id. 183. 

v. Reeve, 14 Johns. 79, 81. Approved 

(Estoppel) in Prentiss- n. Holbrook, 2 Mich. 
376. Cited (Result of suit between two 
persons, when not binding on third) in St. 
Johnsbury & Lake Champlain R. K. Co. n. 
Hunt, 55 Vt. 570; s. c, 45 Am. R. 639. 



138 



CASEY— CASWELL. 



Cited as authority (Evidence to show who 
were real parties to suit) in Belden v. Sey- 
mour, 8 Conn. 304; s. c, 21 Am. Bee. 660, 
663, with note. 

Casey t. Brabason, 10 Abb. Pr. 368. In- 
cluded (Negotiable paper — parties to, not 
guarantors within the Statute of Frauds) in 
2 Ames Gas. on B. & N. 713. 

— — V. Brush, 2 Cat. 293. Cited with Hal- 
sted v. Schmelzel, 17 Johns. 80 ; Westerlo v. 
Evertson, 1 Wend. 532, and other cases, as 
showing that in N. Y., South Carolina, and 
England, assumpsit will not lie for a final 
balance of a partnership account, — in Wil- 
liams *. Henshaw, IVPich. {Mass.) 79; s. c, 
22 Am. Bee. 366, with note, where a con- 
trary rule was recognized as prevailing in 
Mass. and Penn. 

v. Mann, 5 Abb. Pr. 91. Approved 

with Doolittle v. Howard, 3 Duer, 464; 
Robbins v. Mount, 33 How. Pr. 24 ; Kaiser 
v. Hirsh, 46 Id. 161; Moore v. Goedel, 
34 N. Y. 527 (Liability of landlord for 
failure to repair) in Purcell v. English. 86 
Ind. 40. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 5 Sun, 463. 

Disting'd (Defect in local assessment) in 
Matter of Auchmuty, 11 Hun, 79. Com- 
pared with Matter of Auchmuty in Matter 
of N. Y. Prot. Epis. Pub. School, 75 A 7 : Y. 
327. 

T. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 

Daly, 220, 222; s. c, 6 Abb. A 7 ! C. 104, 
with note. Aff d, on other grounds, in 78 
A 7 ! Y. 515. See Luby v. Hudson River R. 
R. Co. 

Cashman v. Henry, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
93; s. c, 55 How. Pr. 234. Rev'd in 75 
A 7 ! Y. 103; s. c, 5 Abb. N. C. 230; 31 Am. 
R. 437, with note ; also 44 Super. Ct. (</". & 
S.) 100, n. Decision in 75 N. T. disting'd 
(Power of married woman to contract) in 
Wilson Sewing Mach. Co. v. Fuller, 60 How. 
Pr. 481. Applied in Zimmerman «. Erhard, 
8 Bait/, 311, 313; Scott v. Otis, 25 Hun, 35. 
See also Waterman on Sp. Per/. § 66, n. 

v. Johnson. See Cushman v. Same. 

Cashmere v. De Wolf, 2 Sandf. 379. See 
to the contrary (Jurisdiction of State courts 
as to questions of salvage) Frith v. Crowcll, 
5 Barb. 209. 

Casler T. Shipinan, 35 N. Y. 533, 541. Ex- 
plained (What facts defendant is entitled to 
have found) in Quincey v. Young, 5 Baly, 44. 

Casoni v. Jerome, 58 A 7 ". Y. 315. Applied 
(Effect of revocation of letters of administra- 
tion on jurisdiction of surrogate) in Gerould 
v. Wilson, 81 A". Y. 573, 578, 583. 

Casper v. O'Brien, 36 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 
574. Reported in 15 Abb. Pr.N. S. 402; 
s. c, 47 How. Pi: 80. 

Cassard v. llinmann, 14 How. Pr. 84. Aff'd 
in 1 Bosw. 207. Further decision in 6 Bosw. 
8. See Harris v. Tumbridge. Decision in 
1 Bosw. relied on (Validity of contracts of 
sale for delivery of goods on future day) in 
Kingsbury v. Kirwin, 43 Super. Ot. {J. & 
S.) 451. 



Casserly v. Manners, 4 How. Pr. 219. Rev'd 
in 9 Hun, 695. Decision in 9 Hun disting'd 
(Application of provisions of R. S. relating 
to moneyed corporations) in McLeans. East- 
man, 21 Hun, 312, 315. 

Cassidy t. City of Brooklyn, 60 Barb. 105 ; 
s. c, more fully, 10 Abb. Pr. A 7 ". S. 97. 
Aff'd in 47 JST. Y. 659, but without new 
opinion. Decision in 10 Abb. Pr. A 7 ! & fol- 
lowed (Necessity for concurrence of mayor 
of Brooklyn in appointment) in People ex 
rel. Ennis v. Schroeder, 12 Hun, 415. 

v. Daly, 23 Hun, 290. Dissenting 

opinion by Gilbert, J., in 11 Weekly Big. 
222. 

v. La Fevre, 57 Barb. 313. Aff'd in 45 

JST. Y. 562. 

v. Schedel, 9 Hun, 340. Aff d, it seems, 

in 71 A 7 ! Y 603, but without opinion. 

Cassin v. Delaney, 1 Baly, 224. Rev'd in 6 
Abb. Pr. JST. S. 1 ; s. c, 38 A 7 ". Y. 178. 
Decision in 38 A 7 ! Y. explained (Liability of 
husband for wife's torts committed iu his 
presence) in Peak v. Lemon, 1 Bans. 295. 
Considered in 13 Cent L. J. 486. Re- 
ferred to (Power to order reduction of ver- 
dict, as alternative of new trial) in Peek i: 
N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Hun, 289, 
as overruled by Murray v. Hudson River 
R. R. Co., 48 A 7 ! Y. 655, n. 

Castellanos y. Jones, 517. 164. Relied 
on (Necessity of recital of jurisdictional 
facts) in Bullymore v. Cooper, 2 Lans. 
71, 80. 

Castle v. Beardsley, 10 Hun, 343. See 
Leonard v. Vredenbergh; Speyers v. Lam- 
bert. Cited (Consideration to appear in 
note or memorandum of sale) in Benj. on 
Sales. § 232, n. u (Bennett's 4 Am. ed.), as 
sustaining English doctrine. 

v. Duryea. 32 Barb. 480. Aft'd in 2 

Reyes, 169; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 327. 
. Decision in 2 Keyes, applied (Liability for 
unintentional assault) in Conway v. Reed, 
66 Mo. 346; s. c, 27 Am. P. 354. Approved 
in 1 Thomps. on Negl. 243. 

v. Lewis, 13 Hun, 298. Aff'd in 78 

A 7 ! Y. 131. See Thurber v. Blanck. 

v. Noyes, 14 A 7 !' Y. 329. See 'Doty t. 

Brown. Applied (Parties bound by former 
adjudication) in Craig v. Ward, 1 Abb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 458; Yorks v. Steele, 50 Barb. 
406; Hudson v. Smith, 39 Super. Ct. (/. & • 
S.) 461; Bush v. Knox, 2 Hun, 576. Ex- 
plained iu dissenting opinion of Daniels, J., 
in Tyng v. Clarke, 9 Hun, 275. Cited as 
authority in Miller v. White, 50 A 7 ". Y. 144. 
Applied (Former adjudication) in Freer v. 
Stotenbur, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 189, 196; 
Fake v. Smith, 7 Abb. Pr. A 7 ! S. 109. Dis- 
ting'd in Hendricks v. Decker, 35 Barb. 
302. 

Caswell v. Black River Manf. Co. See Ellis 
v. Hoskins. 

v. Davis, 4 Abb. Pr. K S. 6; s. c, 35 

now. P". 76. Overruled (Exclusive use of 
names, &c.) in 58 N. Y. 223; s. c, 17 Am. 
Ii. 233. SeeMesseroleo. Tynberg. Decision 



CASWELL-CATON. 



139 



in 58 AT Y. followed (What trade-mark may 
consist of) in Taylor v. Gillies, 59 AT Y. 
331, 335; Ayer v. Eushton, 7 Daly, 9, 13. 
Disting'd in Morgan's Sons' Co. v. Troxell, 
23 Hun, 638. Followed, with Taylor «. Gil- 
lies, 59 AT Y. 331; Meneely v. Meneely, 62 
AT Y. 427; in Marshall v. Pinkham, 52 
Wise. 572; s. a, 38 Am. It. 756. Decision 
in 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. explained in 2 Pars, on 
Contr. 257, n. 

—: — v. Districh, 15 Wend. 379. See Butnam 
v. Wise; Stewart v. Doughty. Reviewed 
and followed (Nature of contract to work 
farm on shares) in Taylor v. Bradley, 39 
AT Y. 129. 

Cathcart v. Cannon, 1 Johns. Gas. 28. Col- 
lated with Loflin v. Fowler, 18 Johns. 335 ; 
People v. Bartlett, 3 Hill. 570; Biggnell v. 
Forrest, 2 Johns. 482; People v. Manning, 
8 Cow. 297; Olcott v. Lilly, 4 Johns. 407 
(Bail, when excused for non-production of 
their principal) in Steelman v. Mattix, 9 
Vroom (AT J.) 247 ; s. c, 20 Am. B. 389. 

Catlelt v. Pacific Ins. Co.; 1 Wend. 561. 
Aff d in 4 Id. 75. 

Catlin v, Adirondack Co., 19 Hun, 389. Con- 
firmed in 81 AT Y. 379. Further proceed- 
ing in 20 Hun, 19, which was rev'd, it 
seems, in 81 JT Y. 639. Also further pro- 
ceeding in 22 Hun, 493. Decision in 81 
N. Y. 639, commented on (Imprisonment of 
plaintiff to collect costs) in Parker v. Spear, 
62 How. Pr. 394. 

v. Catlin, 1 Hun, 322. Mem. of another 

decision in 2 Id. 378; s. a, 4 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & C.) 064. Decision in 2 Hun followed 
(Effect of neglect to file exceptions to 
referee's report in divorce) and Merrill v. 
Merrill, 11 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 74; Moore v. 
Moore, 14 Weekly Dig. 255 ; Green v. Green, 
Id. 159, disregarded, in Gade v. Gade, 14 
Abb. AT G. 510. 

v. Cole, 19 How. Pr. 82. Explained 

(Amendment of case) in O'Gorman v. 

• Kamak, 5 Daly, 517, 519. 

v. Doughty, 12 How. Pr. 457. See 

(Discovery in judgment creditor's action) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1878, n. 

v. Gnnter, 1 Duer, 253. Rev'd in 11 

AT Y. 368. See Aeby v. Rapetye. Decision 
in 11 AT Y. applied (Disregarding variance) 
, in McComber v. Granite Ins, Co., 15 AT Y. 
495. Rcaff'd and approved in Place «. 
Minster, 65 JV. Y. 104. Disting'd in Field 
v. Syms, 2 Bobt. 45. Followed (Application 
of provisions respecting variance to defense 
of usury) in Deuel i\ Spence, 1 Abb. Gt. App. 
Dec. 561 ; Clayes v. Hooker, 4 Hun, 235. 
Limited to course to be pursued at the trial, 
— in Gasper v. Adams, 24 Barb. 287. Dis- 
ting'd as turning entirely on the question of 
variance, iaManning®. Tyler, 21AT F. 569, 
which was however disting'd in Dagal v. 
Simmons, 23 If. Y. 491, where Catlin v. 
Gunter was reaff'd as settling that same 
rule applies to defense of usury as to other 
defenses. Cited as authority (Amending by 
setting up statutory defense) in Gilchrist v. 



Gilchrist, 44 How. Pr. 319. Applied to 
variance from complaint on note, — in Trow- 
bridge v. Didicr, 4 Duer, 451. Disting'd 
(Amending pleadings so as to set up defense 
of usury) in Morris v. Slatcry, 6 Abb. Pr. 
76; Smalley «. Doughty, 6 Bosw. 73. Ap- 
plied in Brown v. Mitchell, 2 Abb. Pr. 482. 
Cited as authority in Union Nat. B'k of 
Troy v. Bassett, 3 Abb. Pr. AT. S. 362; 
Bank of Kinderhook v. Gifford, 40 Barb. 
659. Applied (Reception of proof that will 
create a variance) in Seaman v. Low, 4 
Bosw. 351. Followed (Disregarding vari- 
ance from terms of special agreement set up 
in answer) in Cobb v. West, 4 Duer,AA. 

v. Hansen, 1 Duer, 309. See Bank of 

Orleans ». Barry; Miller v. Ritz. Limited 
(Right of amendment) in Van Ness v. Bush, 
14 Abb. Pr. 33, 36. See in accord there- 
with (Witness, when not to be rejected for 
interest) Allen v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 9 
How. Pr. 501. Disting'd (Recovery on lost 
promissory note, &c.) in Beauford v. Pat- 
terson, 63 How. Pr. 81. 

v. Jackson, 8 Johns. 520. See Wood ti. 

Colvin. Approved (Levy on lands unneces- 
sary) in Bagley v. Ward, 37 Gal. 121. Cited 
with approval (Property of debtor not 
divested by mere seizure on execution) in 
Churchill v. Warren, 2 AT H. 298; s. c, 9 
Am. Dec. 73. 

v. Tobias, 26 AT Y. 217. Disting'd 

(Effect of vendor's failure in delivering all 
of goods contracted for) in Avery v. Will- 
son, 81 AT Y. 345. 

v. Valentine, 9 Paige, 575. Commented 

on (Enjoining nuisance) in Phoenix v. 
Comm'rs of Emigration, 1 Abb. Pr. 475. 
Relied on in dissenting opinion of Mil- 
ler. J., in Metropolitan Board of Health v. 
Heister, 37 AT F. 683. Reviewed with other 
cases, in Hutchins v. Smith, 63 Barb. 255. 
Examined in Doellner «. Tynan, 38 How. Pr. 
180. Followed in Peck v. Elder, 3 Sandf. 
131. "Included with note in Dawson's Lead. 
Gas. in Eg. Simplified, 153. Contrasted 
■with other cases, in 18 Am. L. Rev. 599, 
608. Compared (What constitutes nuisance) 
in Heeg «. Licht, 80 AT Y. 582. Applied in 
Brady s. Weeks, 3 Barb. 159. Followed in 
Pruner i>. Pendleton, 75 Va. 516; s. c, 40 
Am. B. 738. Quoted and discussed in 
Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. §§ 497, 505. Applied 
(Joinder of owners of separate premises in 
action to abate nuisance) in Gillespie ». 
Forrest, 18 Hun, 112. 

Caton v. Riimney, 13 Wend. 387. See Alex- 
ander v. Green. Disting'd (Liability of Tow- 
boat as carrier) in Pa., &c. Nav. Co. v. 
Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 248; s. c, 29 
Am. Dec. 543, 555, with note. Followed 
and approved, with Alexander v. Greene, 3 
Hill, 9; Wells v. Steam Navigation Co., 2 
AT /. 207 ; in Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. 
St. 40; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 587, it being also 
thought that the grounds on which Alex- 
ander «. Greene, was rev'd in 7 Hill, 533, 
cannot be learned from the opinions there 



140* 



CATON— CENTER. 



delivered. These three cases also followed 
in Varble v. Bigley, 14 Bush (Ky.) 698; 
s. c, 29 Am. R. .435. Commented upon in 
2 Pars, on Gontr. 170, n. r. •> 

T. Southwell, 13 AwS. 325. See (Effect 

of supplementary proceedings on after-ac- 
quired property) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 2409, n. 

Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. 471. See 
N. Y. & Sharon Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank. 
Disting'd (Partnership created by participa- 
tion in "profits) in Burnett v. Snyder, 76 
N. Y. 344, 351. Cited in Story on Partn. 
7 ed. § 43, n. 

v. Messenger, 9 Cow. 37; s. c, 9 N. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 558, with brief note. 

v. Sanford, 4 How. Pr. 101. See (Time 

within which to issue execution, in case of 
judgment obtained before the passage of 
Code Pro.) Pierce v. Craine, 4 How. Pr. 
257 

T. Stall, 15 Wend. 364. Aff'd in 18 Id. 

466. Decision in 15 Wend, examined (No- 
tice of protest when indorser's residence is 
uncertain) in Beale ». Parrish, 20 N. Y. 407, 
410. Cited with other cases (Violation of 
partnership articles no defense against bona 
fide holder) in 11 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 542. 

Caughey v. Smith, 50 Barb. 851. Intimation 
in 6 Alb. L. J. 168, that this decision was 
rev'd in Ct. of App., Jan. 16, 1872, is erro- 
neous. See decision in 47 N. Y. 244, which 
was applied (What is decision of General 
Term) in Merceron v. Fowler, 8 Daly, 536. 
Collated with other cases (Right of action 
for enticing away servant) in 22 Am. R. 
485, n. Explained (Enticing minor to en- 
list in the army) in Monk's UnderhilVs Torts, 
1 Am. ed. 336, 338. 

Zaujolle y. Ferrie, 4 Bradf. 28. Aff'd in 26 
Barb, lit, which was aff'd in 23 N. Y. 90. 
See Ferrie v. Public Adm'r ; Foster v. 
Hawley ; Starr v. Peck. 

Caulfield v. Sullivan, 21 Hun, 227. Affd in 
85 N. Y. 153. 

Caulkins v. Harris, 9 Johns. 324. Applied 

with Tanner «. Livingston, 12 Wend. 83 

(Measure of damages for breach of covenant 

of seizin) in Spring v. Chase, 22 Me. 505; 

, s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 595, with note. 

v. Hellinan, 47 N. Y. 449 ; s. c, 7 Am. 

R. 461. Disting'd (Acceptance under 
Statute of Frauds) in Smith v. Milliken, 7 
Lam. 336 ; U. S. Reflector Co. v. Rushton, 7 
Daly, 410. Applied in Ham «. Van Orden, 
4 Hun, 709. Cited as authority in Stone v. 
Browning, 68 N. Y. 601. Followed in 
Brewster v. Taylor, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
159, 16C; Ex parte Parker, 11 Neb. 314. 
Cited as authority in Hewes v. Jordan, 39 
Md. 472 ; s. c, 17 Am. R. 578. Quoted 
and explained in 1 Benj. on Sales, § 139, n. 1 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.) ; Id. § 160, n. q. Cited 
in Benj. on Sales, §§ 140, 181 (Bennett's 4 
Am. ed.). 

Caussidiere v. Beers, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 
333; s. c, ZKeyes, 198. Applied (Tracing 
property or proceeds) in Dows v. Kidder, 



84 iV. Y. 121, 132. Disting'd (Money Ille- 
gally obtained — when recoverable from third 
person) in Stephens v. Board of Education 
of Brooklyn. 79 N. Y. 188. Compare Same 
v. Same, 3 Hun, 712. 

Cavalli v'. Allen, 57 N. Y. 508. Discussed 
(Ejectment against vendee) in Sedgw. & W. 
on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 322. 

Cavanagh, Matter of, 10 How, Pr. 27; s. c, 
as People v. Cavanagh, 1 Park. Cr. 588. 
Rev'd in People v. Cavanagh, 2 Abb. Pr. 84; 
s. a, 2 Pari. Cr. 650, where the certiorari 
arid return are given. 

Cavmiagli v. Dinsuiore, 12 Hun, 465. See 

Sheridan i>. Charlick. Applied (Servant 

when not acting in master's business) in 
Quinu v. Power, 17 Hun, ,102. 

Caw v. Robertson, 5iV. Y, 125. Rev'g 3 Barb, 
410. Commented upon (Executor as sub- 
scribing witness) in Willard on Executors, 
176. 

Caykendoll, Matter of, 6 Cow. 53. Disting'd 
(Jurors — when allowed to impeach affidavit) 
in Dalrymple' v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 361. 

Caylusv. N. Y., Kingston & S R. R. Co., 
49 How. Pr. 100. Aff'd in 10 Hun, 285, 
and that aff'd in 76 N. Y. 609. 

Cayuga Bank v. Daniels, 47 N. Y. 631. Ex- 
plained (Sales — reservation of jus dispo- 
nendi) in 1 Benj. on Sales, §§ 585, 589 
(Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. Dill, 5 Hill, 403. Disapproved (Con- 
duct of indorser excusing protest and notice) 
in Boyd v. Bank of Toledo, 32 Ohio St. 526; 
s. c, 30 Am. It. 628. 

Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee, 2 Paige, 116. 
Aff'd in 6 Wend. 85. See Lawton v. Green. 
Decision in 2 Paige, 116, cited with other 
authorities (Practice concerning injunction 
bonds) in Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433, 
441. 

Cayuga Co. Bank v. Bennett. See Johnson 
v. Beardslee; Merchant's Bank v. Birch. 

— r - v. Hunt, 2 Hill, 635. Approved (Taking 
interest in advance not usury) in Marvine v. 
Hymers, 12 N. Y. '223. 

v. Warden, 6 N. Y. 19. See Dole v. 

Gold. Opinion of Gray, J., in 9 N. Y. Leg. 
Obs. 355. Disting'd (Insufficiency of notice 
of protest) in De La Hunt «. Higgins, 9 
Abb. Pr. 422. 

Cayuga Lake R. R. .Co. v. Kyle, 5 Sup'm. Ct. 
659. Aff'd in 64 iV. Y. 185. 

Cazeaux v. Mali, 25 Barb. 578. Approved, 
and Seizer v. Mali, 32 Barb. 76, disting'd 
(Liability on spurious certificates of stock) 
in Bruff «. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; s. c, 34 
How. Pr. 338; Shotwell v. Mali, 38 Bhrl. 
445. Fully confirmed (Sufficient cause of 
action by stockholders against directors) in 
Smiths. Rathbun, 66 Barb. 405. Applied 
(Liability for representation not made 
directly to party seeking redress) in Eaton, 
Cole & Bui-nham Co. «. Avery, 83 N. Y. 34. 

Center v. American Ins. Co., 7 Cow. 564. 
Aff'd in 4 Wend. 45. See Scott v. Libby. 

-r— v. Finney, 17 Barb. 94. Aff'd in Sell 
Notes, No. 2, 44. 



CENTKAL BANK— CHAINE. 



141 



Central Bank v. Empire Stone Dressing 
Co., 20 Barb. 23: Said, in 22 How. Pr. 571, 
?i., to have been rev'd by Ct. of App. in 
Dec. 1801. Disting'd (Effect of repeal of 
stalute on prior contracts) in Washburn v. 
Franklin, 11 Abb. Pr. 98, which was, however, 
rev'd in 13 Id. 140; s. c, 33 Barb. 599; 24 
How. Pr. 515, which see. 

Central iBank of Brooklyn v. Hainmett, 50 
N. Y. 158. Mem. of decision below, in 4 
Alb. L. J. 75. Disapproved (Presumption 
arising from possession of bill by acceptor 
before due) in Witte v. Willfams, 8 S. ft 
290; s. c, 28 Am. R. 299. Compare Hol- 
mes v. Witty, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. <& G.) 670. 
Included, with notes (Negotiable paper — 
bona fide holder) in 1 Ames Gas. on, B. & N. 
742. 

v. Lang, 1 Bosw. 202. Followed (Dis- 
counted paper) in Farmers' Bank v. Watson:, 
32 K Y. 583. 

Central Bank of Troy v. Heydorn, 48 JST. Y. 
260. Collated and relied on, with Lyon v. 
Adde, 63 Barb. 89 ; Lyon o. Odell, 65 N. Y. 
28; Giles v. Baremore, 5 Johns, Gh. 545 
(Presumption of payment) in article by 
John D. Lawson, in 30 Alb. L. J. 84. 

Central City Savings Bank t. Walker, 66 
N. Y. 424. See Poillon v. Secor. Followed 
(Liability of corporator) in Stafford Bank v. 
Palmer, 47 Conn. 449. Cited in Story on 
Partn. 7 ed. 50, n. Quoted and explained 
(Liability cf partners for acts of copartners) 
in 1 Onllyer on Partn. § 405, u. 1, Wood's 
Am. ed. 

Central Cross-town R. R. Co. t. 23d St. Rw. 
Co., 53 How. Pr. 45. Further proceeding in 
54 Id. 168. Decision in 54 How. Pr. ex- 
plained with Fisher v. N. Y. Central It. R. 
Co., 40 K Y. 644 (Power to lease property 
of railroad corporation) in Metropolitan, &c. 
R'y Co. «. Manhattan R'y Co., 14 Abb. K G. 

' 103, 251. 

Central Gold Mining Co. v. Piatt. See 
Partridge v. Badger. 

Central National Bank v. Richland Na- 
tional Bank, 52 How. Pr. 136. Criticised 
and disting'd (Attachments against national 
banks) in Robinson v. Nat, B'k, 19 Hun, 
477. Overruled or limited in People's B'k 
of N. Y. v. Mechanic's Nat. B'k of Newark, 
62 How. Pr. 422; citing Robinson r>. Nat. 
B'k of Newberne, 81 N. Y. 385. 

V. White, 37 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 297. 

Cited (Corporation cannot be compelled to 
produce its books and papers by subpoena 
duces tecum) in 4 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 377. 

Central Sav'gs Inst. v. Walker, 5 Hun, 35. 
Aff d in Central City Savgs B'k *. Walker, 
6"> N. Y. 424. 

Central Park, Matter of, 4 Hvn, 599. Aff d, 
it seems, in 62 N. Y. 645, on opinion of 
Davis, P. J., below. 

Central Park Extension, Matter of, 16 Abb. 
Pr. 69. Collated, with other cases (Dower 
— barred by eminent domain) in Sliarsw. & 
B. Gas. on Peal Prop. 333. 

Cesar v. Karntz, 60 A 7 ". Y. 229. Disting'd 



(Liability of landlord for .'njurics to tenant 
caused by defect in premises) in Bowe «. 
Hunking,"l35 Mass. 380; s. c, 46 Am. B. 
471. 

Chace v. Hinman, 8 Wend. 452; s. c, 24 
Am. Dec. 39, with note, wherein it is said to 
have been recognized in N. Y. as a leading 
case. See Gilbert v. Wiman ; Rockfeller v. 
Donnelly. Declared to be authority as to 
damages, but disting'd in Gilbert v. Wiman, 
1 2v". Y. 550, 555, 561. 'Cited (When lia- 
bility of surety becomes fixed) in Turnure 
«. Hohenthal, 36 Super. Gi. (J. & 8.) 79. 
Said in Weller v. Barnes, 15 Minn: 401 ; 
s. c, 2 Am. R. 150, 153, to be based (Dam- 
ages allowable on agreement to indemnify) 
on Rockfeller v. Donnelly, 8 Cow. 639 
(which is there said to have been questioned 
in Aberdeen v. Blackmer, 6 Bill, 326, and 
denied in Sedgw. on Dama. 309-314). Also 
disapproved in Weller t. Eames; Churchill 
%. Hunt, 3 Den. 321, being followed and 
Gilbert v. Wiman, 1 N. Y. 550, disting'd. 

Cliailwlck v. Brother, 4 How. Pr. 283. Dis- 
sented from .(Right of sheriff to double costs) 
in Nestle i>. Jones, 6 How. Pr. Yl%. 

v. Fonner, 6 Hun, 543. Rev'd in 69 N. Y. 

404. Decision in 69 N. Y. disting'd (Right to 
possession) in Fonner v. Johnson, 78 N. Y. 
617. 

v. Lamb, 29 Barb. 518. See Rich v. 

Milk. Overruled (Action by chattel mort- 
gagee for conversion) in Hathaway ». Bray- 
man, 42 H. Y. 322 324, as repudiated by 
Hall v, Sampson, 3o K Y. 277. 

Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Convention, 
10 Paige, 85; s. c, 40 Am. Dee. 225, with 
note, collecting citations thereof. See 
Baskin v. Baskin. Followed (Proof of due 
execution of will) in Lewis v. Lewis, 13 
Barb. 23. Applied in Lawrence v. Norton, 
45 Id. 452. Disting'd in Torry v. Bowen, 
15 Id. 308. Cited as authority in Tarrant 
d. Ware, 25 K Y. 429, n. ; Moore ». Gris- 
wold, 1 Red/. 390; Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 30 
Barb. 139; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 16 Hun, 97; 
Matter of Lewis, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 152. Ap- 
plied to subscription bv witness, — in Morris 
v. Kniffln, 37 Barb. 340~ Explained in Willis 
v. Mott, 36 N. Y. 494; Robinson v. Smith, 
13 Abb. Pr. 363. Compared with other cases 
•in Van llooser v. Van Hooser, 1 Red/. 370; 
Norton v. Norton, 2 Id. 12. Quoted in 1 
Jarm. on Wills, .Rand. & T. ed. 219, n. 
Applied (Suffkfiency of subscription to legal 
process) in Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 
66. 

v. Cattaraugus Co. Mnt. Ins. Co., 18 

jV. Y. 376. Followed (Severability of con- 
tract of insurance) in Merrill o. Agricultural 
Ins. Co., 73 JST. Y. 452, 462. 

v. Fort, 2 Lans. 81. Disting'd (Set-off 

in case of insolvency) in Terhune v. B"k of 
Bergen County, 7 Stew. (AT. J.) 367, citing 
Matter of Franklin B'k, 1 Paige, 249 ; Butler 
v. Sp.ague, 66 N. Y. 392. 

Cliaine v. Wilson, 16 How. Pr. 552; s. c, 1 
Bosw. 673; 8 Abb. Pr. 78. Collated with. 



142 



CHALMERS— CHAMPION. 



other cases (Attachment — domicile) in 
Thomps. on Pros. Rem. 359. 

Chalmers t. Wright, 5 Robt. 713. See (Pore- 
closure by advertisement — deed not neces- 
sary) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. 

Chamberlain, Matter of, 28 Sow. Pr. 1. See 
(Official bond — application for leave to pros- 
ecute) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1892, n. 

Chamberlain v. Beller, 18 If. Y. 115. See 
Curtis v. Patterson. Disting'd (Costs — 
when covered by indemnity bond) in Home 
Ins. Co. v. Watson, 1 Sun, G46; s. c, 4 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 230, which was how- 
ever rev'd in 59 If. Y. 390, which see. 
Relied on (Indemnity to officer executing 
process) in Grace ». Mitchell, 31 Wis. 533; 
s. c, 11 Am. R. 613, 620. 

v. Chamberlain, 3 Lans. 348. Modified, 

in 43 If. Y. 424. See Wynkoop v. Halbut. 
Decision in 43 If. Y. followed (Validity of 
bequest to corporation as determined by law 
of its domicile) in Draper v. President, &c. of 
Harvard College, 57 Sow. Pr. 269; Kennedy 
v. Town of Palmer, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
58. Followed* in Taylor's Ex'rs v. Bryn 
Mawr College, 7 Stew. (K J.) 101. Cited 
as authority in Crum v. Bliss, 47 Conn. 599. 
Applied (Surrogate's jurisdiction as to con- 
struction, of will) in Danser v. Jeremiah, 3 
Redf. 143. Applied (Bequest to corporation) 
,in Kerr v. Dougherty, 59 Sow. Pi: 44, 58, 
67, which was modified in 17 Sun, 341, 
which was aff d in 79 If. Y. 327, which see. 
Applied in Curran v. Sears, 2 Redf. 526, 
539, which was affd in 13 Sun, 47b, which 
see. Qualified in Hollis v. Hollis, 29 Hun, 
225. Applied (Bequest to trustees of cor- 
porations, in legal effect a bequest to the 
corporations) in Effray*. Foundling Asylum, 
5 Redf. 557, 560. Followed with Kerr v. 
Dougherty, 79 Id. 346 (Widow, when re- 
stricted to provisions in will for her benefit) 
in Bullard v. Benson, 1 Dem. 486. Followed 
(Equitable conversion by direction to sell) 
in Betts v. Betts, 4 Abb. If. C. 386 ; Kearney 
v. Missionary Society of St. Paul, 10 Abb. 
If. C. 274. 

— — t. Dempsey, 13 Abb. Pr. 61. Rev'd in 
9 Bosw. 212; s. c, 14 Abb. Pr. 241, and 
that overruled in further decision, in 36 
N. Y. 144. Subsequent decision in 9 Bosw. 
540; s. c., 15 Abb. Pr. 1; rev'd in 36 N. Y. 
144. Decision in 36 K Y. cited with Wil- 
liams v. Tilt, Id. 319, but Hartley v. Har- 
rison, 24 Id. 176; Bullard. v. Raynor, 30 
Id. 197, doubted (Usury as personal de- 
fense) in Ready v. Huebner, 46 Wis. 792; 
s. c, 32 Am. R. 749. 

T. Gorham, 20 Johns. T44. Rev'd in 20 

Id. 746. See (Notice with plea) Fuller v. 
Rood, 3 Sill, 258. 

T. Greenleaf, 4 Abb. If. C. 92. Further 

proceeding in Id. 178. Compare (Pledge - ) 
Gould e. Central Trust Co., 6 Abb. N. C. 
381. 

— -• v. Martin, 43 Barb. 607. Followed 
(Validity of private sale made under power 
in mortgage) in .Ballou v. Cunningham, 60 



Barb. 425. Compare Huggans «. Fryer, 1 
Lans. 276, and .dissenting opinion in 4 Lans. 
74. Questioned in T/wmas on Mort. 452. 
Cited as authority in Jones on Chat. Mort 
§ 791. 

v. Roch. Seaml. Pap. Yes. Co., 7 Sun, 

557. Compare (Validity of judgment) Code 
Civ. Pro. § 2430. 

v. Spargur, 22 Sun, 437. Affd in 86 

If. Y. 603. 

v. Townsend, 7 Abb. Pr. 31; s. c, erro- 
neously reported as a decision at Special 
Term, in 26 Barb. 611. See in accord there- 
with (Maker of ■ promissory note, when by 
certificate annexed thereto estopped to set 
up usury) Mechanics' Bank of Brooklyn v. 
Townsend, 17 Sow. Pr. 569. 

v. Western Transportation Co., 45 

Barb. 218. Rev'd in 44 K Y. 305. Decision 
in 44 If. Y. applied (Baggage not "mer- 
chandise") in The Marine City, U. S. Dist. 
Ct. E. D. Mich., 6 Fed. Rep. 415. Quoted 
and collated with other cases, in Thomps. 
on Carr. of Pass. 485. 

Chamberlin v. Cnyler, 9 Wend. 125. Fol- 
lowed as decisive (Items of account pleaded 
as set-off, when not barred) in Helms v. Otis, 
5 Lans. 137. 

Chambers v. Appleton, 46 Super. Ct. (J.&S.) 
577. Appeal dismissed in 84 iV. Y. 649. An- 
other proceeding in 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
524, with which compare (Clerk's fees) Code 
Civ. Pro. § 3301, as amended by I. 1882, 
c. 399. 

v. Clearwater, 41 Barb. 200. Affd in 1 

Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 341. See Oakley «. 
Aspinwall. 

v. Dnrand, 33 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 494. 

See (Resisting motion to vacate order of 
arrest) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 568, n. 

v. Lewis, 2 Silt. 591 ; s. c, 10 Abb. Pr. 

200; affd in 11 Abb. Pr. 210, which was 
affd in 28 If. Y. 454; s. c, more fully, 16 
Abb. Pr. 433. See Garrison v. Howe. Decision 
in 28 If. Y. followed (Action against trustee 
of manufacturing corporation) in McHarg v. 
Eastman, 35 Sow. Pr. 205. Disting'd in An- 
derson v. Speers, 21 Sun, 568, 571 ; Duck- 
worth v. Roach, 8 Daly, 159, 162. Applied 
in Huguenot Nat. Bk. v. Studwell, 6 Daly, 
13, 15. 

v. McCormick. See Hicks v. Minturn. 

Chamboret v. Cagney, 2 Sweeney, 378; s. 

c, 10 Abb. Pr. If. S. 31; 41 Sow. Pr. 
125. Followed (Definition of counter-claim) 
in Mulberger v. Koenig, 22 Northw. Rep. 
745, 747. Followed ("Subject of the ac- 
tion ") in Lehmair v. Griswold, 40 Super. ' 
Ct. (J. & S.) 100. 

Cham bo vet v. Cagney, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
474. See Perkins v. Perkins. Compared 
with other cases (Opinion of value) in 
36 Am. R. 437, n. Opposed (Partnership be- 
tween husband and wife) in Zimmerman v. 
Erhard, 8 Daly, 311, 314. 

Champenois v. White. See Marsh v. Law- 
rence. 

Champion v. Bostwick, 18 Wend. 175; s. c, 



CHAMPION— CHAMPNEY. 



143 



31 Am. Dec. 376, with note, wherein it is 
said to be a leading case. See Bostwick 
v. Champion ; Weed v. Saratoga & Schenec- 
tady R. R. Co. Applied (Creation of 
partnership liability by sharing in profits) in 
Smith v. Wright, 1 Abb. Pi: 246; Cottner v. 
Bettner, 1 Bosw. 493. Re-aff d in Lefcgett 
v. Hyde, 58 If. Y. 279. Approved in Patti- 
son v. Blanchard, 6 Barb. 511, which was 
affd in 5 If. Y. 190, which sen. Examined 
with other cases, in dissenting opinion of 
Siiankland, J., in Burckle v. Eckhart, 3 
If. Y. 141. Disting'd in Briggs v. Vander- 
bilt, 19 Barb. 237; Mohawk & Hudson River 
R. R. Co. v. Nilcs, 3 Hill, 162; ^tna Ins. 
. Co. ». Wheeler, 5 Lans. 482; Merrick v. 
Gordon, 20 If. Y. 93 ; Burnett v. Snyder, 76 
If. Y.S51; Straiton v. N. Y. & New Haven 
R. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 186. Applied 
with Merrick v. Gordon, 20 If. Y. 93; 
Smith v. Wright, 1 Abb. Pr. 243, in Con- 
nolly v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 519; s. c, 2 
Am. R. 154, 160. Explained in Bentley v. 
Harris, 10 E. 1. 434; s. c, 14 Am. R. 095. 
Disting'd and Merrick v. Gordon, 20 If. Y. 
93, approved in Irvin v. Nashville, &c. R. 
R. Co., 92 III. 103; s. c, 34 Am. R. 116. 
Criticised in Beecher v. Bush, 45 Mich. 188; 
s. c, 40 Am. R. 465. Cited at length in 
Story on Partn. 7 cd. § 38, n. Said to be 
followed in Mass. and elsewhere, but criti- 
cised,— in Id. § 50. Cited in 1 Pari, on 
Oontr. 160, n. m. Commented on in 1 Col- 
yer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. 
Relied on with Weed v. Schenectady & Sara- 
toga R. R. Co., 19 Wend. 534 (Liability of 
common carriers) in People v. Rylands, 20 
Penn. St. 497; s. ,c, 59 Am. Dec. 746. 
Compared with other cases (Liability of 
connecting lines of carriers) in 35 Am. li. 
710, n. 

t. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 398; s. c, 

10 Am. Dec. 343. Cited (Equity of pur- 
chaser in contract for sale of land) in Wing 
*. McDowell, , Walk. Oh. 181. Reviewed 
and approved (Enforcing covenants on prin- 
ciple of bills quia timet) in Funk®. Voneida, 

11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 110; s. c, 14 Am. Dec. 
017, with note. Disting'd, but cited as the 
leading case in this country upon the doc- 
trine in Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 
1 Doug. (Mich.) 225; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 
549-570-572, with note. Applied (Pur- 
chaser with notice, bound as his vendor) in 
Clark s. Flint, 22 Pick (Mass.) 231; s. c, 
33 Am. Dec. 733, 738, with note, to case of 
assignee for benefit of creditors. 

v. Joslyn, 44 JV. Y. 653. Cited (Ac- 
count rendered, when open to correction) 
in 2 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 1133. 

v. Webster, 15 Abb. Pi: 4. Overruled 

(Dismissal of complaint for neglect to prose- 
cute) in Winchell v. Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. 
If. S. 47. 

v. White, 5 Cow. 509. See Robb v. 

Montgomery. Cited as authority with Dan- 
forth i>. Suydain, 4 If. Y. 66; Loonie ». 
Hogan, 9 Id. 433 (Meaning of "own") in 



Gibson v. Gibson, 43 Wis. 23; s. c, 28 Am. 
R 527 533 

Cliainpln'in v. People, 2 If. Y. 82. See People 
v. Koeber. Explained and applied (Power 
to let to bail) in People i>. Clews, 77 If. Y. 
39, 45. 

Cham pi in t. Cliamplin, 1 Buffalo Super. Ct. 
(Sheldon) 355. Aff'd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 
620, but without opinion. 

y. Haight, 10 Paige, 274. Rev'd in 7 

Hill, 245. 

v. Laytin, 1 Edw. 467. Aff'd in 6 

Paige, 189; which was aff'd in 18 Wend. 
407. See Holdredge v. Webb; Livingston 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Lyon v. Richmond ; 
Mercer St., Matter of; Shotwell v. Murray. 
Decision- in 18 Wend, followed (Relief 
against mistakes of law) in Fellows v. Heer- 
mans, 4 Lans. 230, 243. Decision in 1 
Edw. cited with approval in Griffith v. Town- 
ley, 69 Mo. 13; s. c, S3 Am. R. 481; Evants 
v. Strodes, 11 Ohio, 480; s. c, 38 Am. Dee. 
14&, with note. 

T. Petrie, 4 Wend. 209. . Disting'd 

(Judgment as for non-suit, in referred cause) 
in Sheldon v. Erie Common Pleas, 12 Id. 
268. 

v. Rowley, 13 Wend. 258. Aft'd in 18 

Id. 187. Both decisions followed (Recovery 
for part performance) in Pullman v. Corning, 
14 Barb. 179; Soloman v. Neidig, 1 Daly, 
200; Paige v. Ott, 5 Den. 408; Moses v. 
Banker, 2 Sweeny, 271. Re-aff'd in Smith <o. 
Brady, 17 If. Y. 1S5. Disting'd in Tipton 
v. Feitner, 20 If. Y. 428. Collated with 
other cases and disting'd in Avery i>. Will- 
son, 81 If. Y. 344. Criticised by Dwight, 
Referee, in Marie <u. Garrison, as stating an 
extremely rigid rule, and almost peculiar to 
New York, not followed in England nor in 
many American courts. See also Smith v. 
Brady, in this table. Explained in 2 Ben}, 
on Sales, § 1032, n. 19 (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 
Collated with Smith v. Brady. 17 K Y. 173,- 
187; GlaciusD. Black, 50 Id, 145; Sinclair 
v. Talmadge, 35 Barb. 602; Phillip v. 
Gallant, 62 If. Y. 264, and other cases, in 19 
Am. Dec. 272, n., as showing that in N. Y. 
the rigor of the rule that holds a party to a 
strict compliance with the terms of his con- 
tract, before he can look to the other con- 
tracting party for compensation, is gradu- 
ally .relaxing. Decision in 13 Wend, dis- 
ting'd in Talmage v. White, 35 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 222. Re aff'd in Mead®. Degolyer, 
10 Wend. 636, 640. Decision in 18 Wend. 
explained in Matthews v. Hobby, 48 Barb. 
172, as not inconsistent with Russell v. 
Nicholl, 3 Wend. 112. Explained at length 
and disting'd in Morrell v. Irving Fire Ins. 
Co., 33 N. Y. 458. Re-aff'd in Pullman v. 
Corning, 9 Id. 95. Applied in Catlin v. 
Tobias, 20 Id. 222. 

Clinmpiiey v. Blanchard, 38 If. Y. 53. See 
opinion of Mason, J., in 6 Transc. App. 
53, 59. See Millspaugh v. Putnam. 

V. Coope, 34 Barb. 539. In effefet 

rev'd in 32 If. Y. 543 



1U 



CHANCE— CHAPMAN. 



Chance t. Isaacs, 5 Paige, 592. See Coster 
«. Griswold. Disapproved as contrary to 
authority (Set-off in case of insolvency) in 
Keep v. Lord, 2 Duer, 83. 

Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. 157; s. c, 9 
Am. Dec. 193. Applied (Waiver of lien 
for freight) in Raymond «. Tyson, 17 How. 
U. 8. 61. Disting'd in Claikson v. Edes, 
4 Cow. 470. Reviewed in Waples on Proc. 
in. Pern. § 531. Discussed in Ang. on Carr. 
§ 387, 5 ed. 

-r— v. Bunn, Hill & D. 167. Applied 
(Recital Of residence in mortgage) in Stewart 
v. Piatt, 101 U. 8. 731, 737. 

v. Edson. See Betts v. Lee. 

v. Herrick, 19 Johns. 129; s. c, 6 K Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed: 745, with 'brief note. 
Examined (Covenant in restraint of right to 
sue) in Millett v. Hayford, 1 Wise. 412. 
Disapproved in Morgan v. Butterfield, 3 
Mich. 617; Robinson e. Godfrey, 2 Id. 408, 
citing many cases. Followed in Menden- 
hall v. Lenwcll, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 125; s. c, 
33 Am. Dee. 458. 

v. Hoag, 2 Hun, 613; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. 

(T. & C.) 197. AfFd on this opinion in 63 
N. Y. 624. 

Chanoine r. Fowler, 3 Wend. 173. See 
Packard v. Hill. Cited with approval 
(Who may give notice to indorser) in Cabot 
B'k v. Warner, 10 Allen, 525. Included in 
Pedf. & B. Lead. Cas. on B. of Exch. 383. 
Also in Bigel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 272, with 
note. Cited with Halliday v. McDougaU, 20 
Wend. 81 (Judicial notice of seals of notaries 
public) in Pierces). Indseth, 106 U. 8. 546, 
549. 

Chapin v. Dobson, 78 N. Y. 74; s. c, 34 Am. 
P. 512. Followed (Parol evidence of col- 
lateral undertaking) in Lanphire». Slaughter, 
01 How. Pr. 36, 38. Opposed in Mast v. 
Pearce, 58 Iowa, 579; s. c, 43 Am. P. 125, 
where the rule of earlier N. Y. decisions 
was preferred. Explained (Statute of 
Frauds — Memorandum or note in writing) 
in Benj. on Sales, § 203, n. 2 (Corbin's 4 
Am. ed.);Id. § 209, n. 6. 

v. Merrill, 4 Wend. 657. See Leonard 

v. Vredenbergh. Disapproved (Promise to 
indemnify a surety as affected by statute of 
frauds) in Baker <o. Dillman, 12 Abb. Pr. 
313, 316. Disapproved in Kingsley v. Bal- 
come, 4 Barb. 131, as unsupported by au- 
thority. Cited from in Jones v. Shorter, 1 
Oa. 294; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. 649, 653, with 
note. Reviewed with other cases and refer- 
red to in Bissig v. Britton, 59 Mo. 204; s. c, 
21 Am. P. 379, as having been overruled by 
Kingsley v. Balcome, 4 Barb. 131, and other 
later N. Y. cases. Criticised in Maeey v. 
Childress, 2 Tenn. Ch. 438, 448, as contrary 
to later N. Y. decisions. Collated with 
Kingsley v. Balcome, 4 Barb. 131 ; Barry v. 
Ransom, 12 XT. Y. 462; Mallory t. Gillett, 
21 Id. 412; Konitzky i>. Meyer, 49 Id. 571, 

. and other cases, in Horn v. Bray, 51 Jnd. 
655; s. c, 19 Am. P. 742. Compared in 4 
Am. L. Peg. N. 8. 242. Collated with 



other authorities and applied (Consideration 
of promise to indemnify) in Duncans. Miller 
64 Iowa, 225. 

■—— t. Seeley, 13 How. Pr. 490. Approved 
(Practice upon motion to vacate order of 
ar.rest) in Barron v. Sanford, 14 How Pr 
443. - 

v. Shafer. See Bostwick v. Atkins- 

Jackson v. Carpenter. 

v. Thompson, 4 Hun, 779. See also 

(Trustees and statute of limitations) Con- 
gregational Ch. in Union Village, Matter of 
6 Abb. N. O. 398. ' 

v. , 18 Hun, 446. Rev'd in 80 N. Y. 

275. Other proceedings in 16 Hun, 53 ; 58 
How. Pr. 46; 23 Hun. 12, which latter was 
modified in 89 K Y. 270. See Beach v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Decision in 16 Hun, 
followed (Examination before trial) in Kitz- 
patrick v. Van Schaick, 59 How. Pr. 472, 
in dissenting opinion of Dykman, J., in 
Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Hun, 168. Re- 
cognized in Tenney v. Maufner, 1 Civ. Pro. 
P. 71. Decision in 23 Hun relied on 
(Practice after trial of specific issues by jury) 
in Madison University v. White, 25 Hun, 
490. Explained in Glidden v. LaDgdon, 24 
Hun, 493. Decision in 80 K Y. followed 
(Exceptions on trial of specific questions of 
fact, in equity action, when to be presented) 
in decision in 89 N. Y. Decision in 89 K. 
Y. followed (Usurious debt rendered valid 
by being included in schedules of general 
assignment) in Matter of Thompson, 80 
Hun, 195. 

Chapman v. Albany & Schenectady E. E. 
Co., 10 Barb. 360. Recognized as authority 
(Recovery by abutting property owner for 
injury resulting from improvements) in 
Elizabeth, Lexington, &c. R. R. Co. v. 
Combs, 10 Bush (Ky.) 382; s. c, 19 Am. 
P. 67. Collated, with other cases, in Mills 
Tlwmpg. on Highw. 3 ed. 410. Explained 
in 1 Am. L. Peg. N. 8. 198. Cited with 
Radcliff's Executors v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- 
lyn, 4 N. Y. 195 (both said to overrule 
Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 
25 Wend. 462) ; Lansing ». Smith, 8 Cow. 
146, and other cases in 7 Am. P. 119, *., 
as denying the right to recover damages 
arising from an act authorized by statute. 

v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr. 281. Same 

rule held (Denial in form "he says that lie 
denies ") in Jones v. Ludlum, 74 N. Y. 61. 

v. City of Brooklyn, 40 N. Y. 372. 

Disting'd (Effect of invalidity of assess- 
ment proceedings on right to recover back 
money paid) in Nash v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 9 Hun, 221 ; City of Rochester 
v. Town of Rush, 80 N. Y. 311. Ex- 
plained iu Dewey v. Sup'rs of Niagara, 4 
Sup'm. Ct. (7: & C.) 611. Disting'd in 
Strusburgh v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 512. Applied in Bank 
of Commonwealth v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y-, 
43 N. Y. 191; Newman v. Sup'rs of Living- 
ston, 45 Id. 685. Followed in Nat. Bank 
of Chemung v. City of Ehnini, 53 iV. ) r . 5(5. 



CHAPMAN. 



113 



Applied (Conclusiveness of certificate of 
assessment proceedings) in Newell v. 
"Wheeler, 48 JST. Y. 490. Disting'd (Liability 
of municipal corporation to refund money 
inequitably received) in De Grauw v. Sup'rs 
of Queens, 13 Hun, 384. 

v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 3 

Lang. 2C1. To the contrary (Plaintiffs 
title) see cases cited in Abb. Tr. Ev. 692, 
n. 2. 

T. Draper, 10 How.Pr. 367. Aff d in 17 

If. Y. 125. 

v. Dyett, 11 Wend. 31; s. c, 25 Am. 

Dec. 598, with note. Disting'd (Liability 
for proceedings taken under irregular pro- 
cess) in Day v. Bach, 46 Super. Ct. (J. & 
8.) 466; Landt v. Hilts, 19 Barb. 290; Van 
Ingen v. Snyder, 24 Hun, 81. Criticised 
but approved in Dominick v. Eacker, 3 
Barb. 19. 

v. Erie R'y Co., 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 

526. Eev'd in 55 If. Y. 579. Decision in 
55 If. Y. relied on (When erroneous instruc- 
tion to jury may be obviated) in People v. 
Greenfield, 23 Hun, 472. Disting'd (Ad- 
missibility of agent's declarations) in Mc- 
Dermott v. Hannibal, &c. R. R. Co., 73 Mo. 
516; s. c, 39 Am. R. 526. See, also, 
Adams v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R R. Co., 
74 Mo. 553 ; s. c, 41 Am. R. 333. 

v. Fish, 6 Hill, 554; s. c, 16 N. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 456, with brief note. 
T. Fuller, 7 Barb. 70. Followed (Re- 
newal of execution) in . Hodge v. Adee, 2 
Lane. 314. 

v. Gates, 46 Barb. 313. Affd in 54 

If. Y. 145. See Bloodgood v. Mohawk & 
Hudson River R. R. Co. Decision in 46 
Barb, disting'd (Effect of failure to produce 
record of highway) in Marvin v. Pardee, 64 
Barb. 353, 359. Decision in 54 If. Y. dis- 
ting'd with Sage v. City of Brooklyn, 89 
If. Y. 189 (Provision for payment for land 
taken by eminent domain) in Matter of 
Church, 92 N. Y. 1. 

v. Lathrop, 6 Cow. 110; s. c, 8 If. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 849, with brief note ; 
16 Am. Dec. 433, with note, citing cases, 
— wherein it is said to have been frequently 
approved (Effect of delivery of goods without 
payment to pass the title) in N. Y. Fol- 
lowed in Morgan v. Powers, 66 Barb. 35, 
38. 

v. Lemon. See Brittin b. Wilder. 

v. Lipscomb, 1 Johns. 294. Approved 

and applied (Diligence in ascertaining in-, 
* dorser's address) in Central National Bank 
v. Adams, 11 tl C. 452 ; s. c, 32 Am. £. 
495. Cited with approval in Nichol v. Bate, 
7 Yerff. (Tenn.) 305; s. c, 27 Am. Dec. 
505. Disting'd in Foard v. Johnson, 2 Ala. 
565; s. c, 36 Am. Dec. 421, with note. 
Reviewed with Ogden v. Cowley, 2 Johns. 
274; Ireland v. Kip, 11 Id. 232, and other 
cases (Sufficiency of notice sent to indorser 
by mail) in Shed «. Brett, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 
401 ; s. c, 11 Am. Dec. 209, 214, with note. 
t. March, 19 Johns. 290; s. a, 10 Am. 

I.-10 



Dec. 227; 6 AT Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 803, 
with brief note. Followed with'Duffee v. 
Mason, 8 Com. 25; Roberts v. Morgan, 2 
Cow. 438 ; Oneida Manf. Soc. v. Lawrence, 4 
Cow. 440, (Warranty on sale of chattels) in 
Kinley v. Fitzpatrick, 4 How. (Miss.) 59; 
s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 108, with note. Exam- 
ined with Swett v. Colgate, 20 Johns. 196 ; 
Seixas «. Woods, 2 Cad. 48, in Henshaw n. 
Robbins, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 83; s. c, 43 Am. 
Dec. 367, 370, with note. 

v. New Haven R. R. Co , 19 If. Y. 341. 

See Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.; 
Button v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Dis- 
ting'd (Contributory negligence in one hav- 
ing charge of conveyance) in Bronk ■». N. 
Y. & New Haven R R. Co., 5 Daly, 454, 
457. Disting'd with Webster v. Hudson R. 
R. R. Co., S8KY. 262; Colegrove«. N. Y. & 
N. II. R. R. Co., 20 Id. 492, in Callahan v. 
Sharp, 27 Hun, 85. Referred to with Cole- 
grove v. N. Y. & N. H. R R. Co., 20 If. 
Y. 492, in Mooney d. Hudson River R. R. 
Co., 5 Robt. 548, as overruled by Brown 
v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 597. 
Cited with approval with Webster <b. Hud- 
son River R. R. Co., 19 N. Y. 341, in Ben- 
nett v. New Jersey R. R., &c. Co., 36 If. J. 
(7 Vroom) 225; s. c, 13 Am. R. 435, 438. 
Collated with Colegrovc v. N. Y. & Harlem 
R. R Co., 20 If. Y. 492, and other cases, 
in Prideaux v. City of Mineral Point, 43 
Wis. 513 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 558, where Knapp 
v. Dagg, 18 How. Pr. 165; Metcalf «. Baker, 
11 Abb. Pr. If. S. 431; Beck v. East River 
Ferry Co., 6 Robt. 82, also were cited in 
this connection, the last mentioned case 
being thought to conflict in principle with 
Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 
66 JV! Y. 11. Discussed and cases cited in 
4 Am. L. Reg. If. S. 25. Disting'd (Effect of 
contributory negligence of third person, 
&c ) in Chipman v. Palmer, 77 If. Y. 51. 
Applied with Brchm v. Great Western R'y, 
34 .ft??-*.. 274; Mott v. Hudson River R. R. 
Co., 8 Bosw. 345, in Ricker v. Freeman, 50 
If. H. 420; s. c, 9 Am. R. 267, 275. 

v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 

399. Affd in 33 N. Y. 369. Decision in 
33 N. Y: disting'd (Liability of railroad 
company for negligent acts of employee, 
done for his own benefit) in Morier v. St. 
Paul, Minneapolis, &c. R'y Co., 31 Minn. 
351; s. c, 47 Am. R. 793. 

v. O'Brien, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 524. 

Further decision in 39 Id. 244. 

v. Phoenix Nat. Bank of N. Y., 5 Abb. 

If. C. 118; s. c, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
340. Rev'd in 85 N. Y. 437. 

v. Robertson, 6 Paige, 627; s. c, 31 

Am. Dec. 264, with note, collecting cita- 
tions thereof, and where it is said to be 
a leading case. Cited as authority (Usu- 
rious character of contract as determined 
by law of place) in Wayne Co. Sav'gs 
B'k v. Low, 6 Abb. N. C. 85; Pomcroy 
v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 128. Followed in 
Balme v. Wombough, 38 Barb. 363 ; N. Y. 



146 



CIIAPMAN— CIIARRUAUD. 



Dry Dock Co. v. Am. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 
3 Saridf. Oh. 267 ; ■ Bank of State of Ga. 
v. Lewin, 45 Barb. 343. Doubted and clis- 
ting'd in Cope v. Aid en, 03 Barb. 353 ; Cur- 
tis v. Leavitt, 15 K T. 88, 22'i Disting'd 
in Dickinson «t. Edwards, 77 N. Y. 573, 
585. Questioned in Story's Oonf. of L. § 
293, c, and n. Examined in Fisher v. Otis, 3 
Chand. ( Wise.) 83. Examined at length in 
dissenting opinion of Mullin, J., in Smith 
«. Alvord, 63 Barb. 431 ; in dissenting opin- 
ion of Davie's, J., in Jewell v. Wright, 1 
Sheld. 232, n. Examined with other cases, 
in Hildreth v. Shepard, 65 Barb. 271. Fol- 
lowed and approved in Kilgore v. Dempsey, 
25 Ohio St. 413; s. c, 18 Am. R. 306, 811. 
Reviewed with Wayne Co. Sav'gs Bank v. 
Low, 81 A 7 ". Y. 569, and other cases, in Scott 
e. Perlee, 39 Ohi> St. 63; s. c, 48 Am. R. 
421. Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on 
Contr. 584, n. h. Discussed and favorably 
commented upon in 2 Kent Com. 461, n. a. 
Disting'd (Foreclosure — set-off) in Hudson 
Fire Ins. Co. v. Wmthrop, 2 Leg. Obs. 38 ; 
Holden v. Gilbert, 7 Paige, 211. Examined 
in Bathgate v. Haskin 51) N. Y. 537. Ap- 
plied in Rawson ». Copeland, 2 Sandf. Oh. 
251. 

v. Rose, 44 How. Pr. 364. Rev'd in 56 

N. Y. 137; s. a, 47 How. Pr. 13; 15 Am. R. 
407. Decision in 56 A 7 ". Y. disting'd (Lia- 
bility on paper negligently issued) in Sweet 
t>. Chapman, 7 Hun, 576, 579. Applied in 
Carey v. Miller, 25 Hun, 28, 31. Examined 
with other cases in Millard v. Barton, 13 R. 
1. 606. Followed, and Jackson v. Hayner, 12 
Johns. 469, disting'd in Montgomery v. 
Scott, 9 S. 0. 20 ; s. c, 30 Am. R. 1. Fol- 
lowed and approved in Ort v. Fowler, 31 
Kans. 478; s. c, 47 Am. R. 501. Collated 
with Whiting v. Snyder, 2 Bans. 477, and 
other cases, in 41 Am. R. 607, n. 

v. Smith. See Niven v. Munn. 

■ v. Swan, 65 Barb. 210. Compare (Lay- 
ing out highways) L. 1873, c. 315, which 
was, however, repealed by L. 1874, c. 616; 
L. 1875, c. 431. Compare (Plea of title in 
action for obstructing highway) Little v. 
Deun, 34 iK Y. 452. 

v. White, 6 A 7 ! Pi 412; s. c, 57 Am. 

Dec. 464, with note. See Commercial B'k 
v. Hughes; Hutter v. Ellwanger; Lunt ■». 
Bank of North America. Followed (Check 
does not operate as assignment of fund) in 
Butterworth v. Peck, 5 Bosw. 341 . Applied 
in Curry v. Powers, 70 A 7 ! Y. 216; Willetts 
«. Finlay, 11 How. Pr. 474. Applied in dis- 
senting opinion of Strong, J., in Ketchum 
v. Bank of Commerce, 19 A 7 ". Y. 513. Fol- 
lowed (No action on unaccepted draft) in 
Ketchum «. Stevens, 6 Duer, 483 ; JEtna 
National Bank v. Fourth National Bank, 46 
N. Y. 82, 87. Approved in Carr v. National 
Security Bank, 107 Mass. 45 ; s. c, 9 Am. 
R. 6, 9, as according with the law in -Eng- 
land, Penn. and the U. S. Supreme Court. 
Cited as authority with Pope ». Luff, 7 Hill, 
577, inNat'l Bank of Rockville v. Second 



Nat'l D'k of Lafayette, 69 lad. 479; s. c, 
3,) Am. R. 230, with note collecting cases. 
Applied (Power of corporation, to incur 
obligations) in Curtis is. Leavitt. lo A 7 ". Y 
169. 

Chapman Slate Co. v. Sntcliffe, 2 Hun, 634 • 
s. c, 5 Sufm. Ot. (T. & O.) 686. Aff d in 
63 N~. Y. 616. 

Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend. 157. See 
Maier t>. Hotnan ; Nobles ». Bates. Followed 
and Hooker B.Vandowater, iDen. 349; Stan- 
ton v. Allen, 5 Id. 434, criticised and disap- 
proved (Contracts in restraint of trade) in 
Kellogg v. Larkin, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 123: 3 
Chand. 133; s. a, 56 Am. Dec. 164,177. Cited 
with approval, with Holbrook v. Waters, 9 
How. Pr. 335, in Smalley v. Greene, 52 Iowa, 
241; s. c, 35 Am. R. 267, with note. Col- 
lated with Dunlap v. Gregory, 10 N. Y. 241 ; 
Lawrence v. Kidder, 10 Barb. 641 ; Holbrook 
v. Waters, 9 Hoio. Pr. 335, and other cases, 
in 13 Am. R. 173, n. Opinion of Beonson, 
J., approvingly cited in 2 Kent Com. 467, 
n. e ; 2 Pars, on Oontr. 748, n. z. 

v. Chappel, 12 A 7 ". F. 215; s. c, 64 Am. 

Dec. 496, 501, with brief note. Limited 
(Judgment entered on insufficient state- 
ment, when fraudulent) in Miller ». Earlc, 
24 A 7 ". Y. 110, 112. 

— — v. Skinner, 6 How. Pr. 338. Disting'd 
(Provisional remedies) in Rockford, &c, R. 
R. Co. v. Boody, 56 A 7 ! Y. 456, 459. 

Chappell v. Spencer, 23 Barb. 584. Re- 
asserted (Alteration of note by adding name 
of person as maker) in Brownell v. Winnie, 
29 A". Y. 400, notwithstanding contrary decis- 
ions in Cobb a. Titus, 10 A 7 ! Y. 198; Part- 
ridge v. Colby, 19 Barb. 248. But followed 
and reconciled with Cobb «. Titus ; Partridge 
v. Colby, in McVean v. Scoit, 46 Barb. 379. 
Opposed in Card v. Miller, 1 Hun, 504, 506. 
Disapproved with McVean v. Scott, as stand- 
ing alone, in Denick v. Hubbard, 27 Hun, 
347. Both cases referred to in 23 Am. L. 
Reg. A 7 ! S. 198, as expressly overruled in 
Card v. Miller, 1 Hun, 504. Followed with 
McCaughey v. Smith, 27 A 7 ! Y. 39, in Wal- 
lace v. Jewell, 21 Ohio St. 163; s. c, 8 
Am. R. 48, where Brownell v. Winnie, 29 
A 7 ! Y 408; Cobb «. Titus, 10 A 7 ". Y. 199, 
were disting'd. Cited as authority in Co- 
burn «. Webb, 56 Ind. 96; s. c, 26 
Am. R. 15. 

Charles v. Loweiistein, 26 How. Pr. 29. 
Overruled in effect (Cause of action against 
separate estate of wife, whether necessarily 
equitable) in Hauptman v. Catlin, 20 N. T. 
247 ; Corn Exch. Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 42 
K Y. 613. 
v. People, 1 A 7 ". Y. 180. See brief opin- 
ion of court below in How. App. Gas. 362. 
Decision in 1 N. Y. applied (Curing de- 
fect in indictment) in Case v. People, 6 Abb. 
A 7 ! O. 151, 157. Applied (Legality of for- 
eign contract as affected by our statute) in 
Ormes «. Dauchy, 82 K Y. 443, 448. 

Charruaud v. Charruaud, IKY. Leg. Ok. 
134. Explained (Dower— divorce for adul- 



CHARTER- CHAUTAUQUE. 



147 



tery) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 707, n. 1, 
6 ed. ; itf. $ 717. • 

Charter t. Otis, 41 Barb. 525. Explained 
(Effect of introductory clause in will on 
subsequent devise without words of per- 
petuity) in Vanderzee v. Vanderzee, 36 N. 
Y. 231. 

T. Stevens, 3 Den. 33 ; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 

4Ai, with, note, collecting citations thereof. 
Disting'd (What operates as satisfaction of 
chattel mortgage) in Brown v. Rich, 40 Barb. 
32. Ap-»iied (Right of mortgagor of chat- 
tels to redeem) in Hinman «. Judson, 13 
Barb. 631 ; Stoddard v. Dehison, 2 Sweeny, 
61. 

Chase v. Barrett, 4 Paige, 148. See Vander- 
burgh v. Hull. Re-affd (Participation in 
profits as constituting a partnership) in Leg- 
gett v. Hyde, 58 2f. Y 279. Disting'd in 
Burnett v. Snyder, 76 K Y. 344, 851. Also ex- 
plained in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 27, n. But 
see Auten v. Ellirigwood, 51 How. Pr. 364; 
Explained in 1 Collyer on Partn. § 47, n. 1, 
"Wood's Am. ed. 

v. Day, 17 Johns. 114. Applied (Obliga- 
tion to answer for another — when an original 
contract) in Post ■». Geoghegan, 5 Daly, 
216. 

v. Ewing, 51 Barb. 597. Explained 

(Mortgage as evidence of indebtedness) in 
Coleman a. Van Renssalaer, 44 How. Pt. 
372. Disting'd ^Advancements) in Eisner 
n. Koehler, 1 Dem. 277. 

v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 22 K. Y. 527. 

Rev'd in 20 K Y. 52. See Brown v. 
Cattaraugus County Mut. Ins. Co. ; Rowley 
v. Empire Ins. Co. Decision in 20 N. Y. 
disting'd (Insurance company — when bound 
by knowledge of agent) in Van Sehoick ». 
Niagara Ins. Co., 68 N. Y. 441; Woodruff 
■d. Imperial P. Ins. Co., 83 K Y. 133, 140. 
Decision in 22 Barb, followed (Insurable 
interest of equitable title. Fraud in repre- 
sentations of ownership of land by owner of 
such title) in Acer». Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 
Barb. 63, 82. 

— : — V. Hosran, 6 Bosw. 431. Reviewed and 
explained (Specific performance of contract) 
in further decision, in 3 Abb. Pr. K S. 
58. 

v. James, 10 Hun, 506. Further pro- 
ceeding in 16 Id. 14. Compare (Referee's 
fees) Code Cm. Pro. 1881, § 3290, n.; Rust 
». Hauselt, 8 Abb. N. O. 148, 153. Decis- 
ion in 16 Hun, followed, and First Nat. 
Bk. v. Tamajo, 77 K. Y. 478, explained 
(Attorney's authority as to referee's fees) in 
Mark ». City of Buffalo, 87 N. Y. 184. 

v. Lord, 16 Hun, 369. Rev'd in 77 

JST. Y. 1 ; s. c, 6 Abb KG. 258. Decision 
in 77 N. Y. dis^g* ^ ^Proof that defendant 
is stockholder) in Wheeler v. Miller, 24 
Han, 541, 543. Disapproved (Liability of 
corporator) in Gulli\er <b. Roelle, 100 III. 
155. 

v. N. T. Central R. R. Co., 24 Barb. 273. 

Approved and followed with Easterbrook v. 
Erie R'y Co., 51 Barb. 94 (Damages for 



overflow of land damaging ungrown crops) 
in Drake «. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 63 
Iowa, 310. 

v. . 26 K Y. 523. Compared (Ex- 
action of illegal fares) in Bordeaux v. Erie 
Railway Co., 8 Hurt, 579, 581. 

v. Peck, 21 K Y. 581. See Phyfc n. 

Riley. Applied (Vendee's lien for purchase 
mouev paid) in Clark v. Jacobs, 56 How. Pr. 
521. " 

v . Vandorhilt, 37 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 

334. Ard in 62 K Y. 307. Decision in 
37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) followed in action 
wherein the substance of the complaint and 
demurrers were the same, — in Webbs. Van- 
derbilt, 39 Super. Ct. {J. & 8.) 4, 9. Ap- 
plied (Jurisdiction in actions affecting 
foreign corporations) in Atl. & Pac. Tel. 
Co. «. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co., 46 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 377, 386. 

Chatham Bank v. Betts, 23 How. Pr. 476. 
Aff'd in 9 Bosw. 552, which was aff'd in 37 
K Y. 355. 

Chatterton v. People, 15 Abb. Pr. 147. 
Applied (Receiving stolen goods) in Miller 
v. People, 25 Hun, 473. 

Chauncey v. Laurence, 15 Abb. Pr. 106. 
Statute here referred to is in substance re- 
enacted by L. 1863, c. 392. 

Chantauque Co. Bank v. Risley, 4 Den. 480. 
Subsequent decision in 19 K Y. 369; subse- 
quent judgment for plaintiff aff'd by Ct. of 
App. in 1863. Decision in 19 K Y. criti- 
cised (Remedy of judgment creditor) in 
Erickson v. Quinn, 15 Abb. Pr. K. S. 168. 
Reaff'd in Bergen v. Snedeker, 8 Abb. K C. 
57. Applied in Dawley v. Brown, 65 Barb. 
120; Morssu. Purvis, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (21 & C.) 
141, n. Disting'd in Warden v. Browning, 
12 Hun, 499. Cited as authority (Nature 
of conveyance by debtor to receiver) in 
Elsworth v. Muldoon, 15 Abb. Pr. K S. 444. 
Applied (Sale of real estate by receiver — 
when not to be permitted) in Inglehart's 
Petition, 1 Sheld. 514. Applied (Title 
through receiver's deed) in Walker v. White, 
36 Barb. 599. Disting'd (Date of receiver's 
title as to choses in action) in Clark v. 
Brockway, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 354. Ex- 
plained (Necessity of conveyance, &c. to 
vest title in receiver) in Hayes v. Buckley, 
53 How. Pr. 187. Followed in Scott v. 
Elmore, 10 Hun, 71; Union Nat. Bk. v. 
"Warner, 12 Id. 309; Moak v. Coats, 33 
Barb. 501. Disting'd in Wing v. Disse, 15 
Hun, 194. Applied (Right of judgment 
debtor to redeem.) in Livingston v. Arnoux, 
56 V. Y. 515. Criticised in dissenting 
opinion of Spencer, J., in Bowers «. Ar- 
noux, 33 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 549. Explained 
(Judgment in action to set aside fraudu- 
lent conveyance) in Orr v. Gilmore, 7 Lam. 
346. Followed in Cole <a. Tyler, 65 N. Y. 77. 
Discussed (Creditor's actions — judgment) in 
Wait on Fraud. Com. § 170. Cited (Pre- 
sumption as to corporate acts) in Home 
Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Packet Co., 32 
Iowa, 223; s. c, 7 Am. B. 183, 192. For 



148 CHAUTAUQUE CO. BANK-CHEMUNG- CANAL BANK. 



a stricter rule see People ex rel. Town of 
Rochester «. Deyoe, 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 
142. See also Abb. Tr. En. 36. Applied 
(Right of corporation to hold real estate) 
in Alward ». Holmes, 10 Abb. N. C. 96, 
99. 

v. White, 6 Barb. 589. Rev'd in 6 K Y. 

236; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 442, with note. 
See Storrs v. Barker, below. Decision in 6 
N~. Y. explained in Ohautauque County Bk. 
v. Risley, 19 N. Y. 383, as not a bar to that 
action. Followed (Title through receiver's 
deed) in Walker v. White, 36 Barb. 598. 
Disting'd (Estoppel to dispute title to real 
estate) in Tilton v. Nelson, 27 Barb. 607. 
Applied (Remedy of judgment creditor) in 
Dawley v. Brown, 65 Barb. 120; Fassett v. 
Tallmadge, 18 Abb. Pr. 59; Chillingworth 
». Freeman, 67 Barb. 384. Applied (Re- 
ceiver's title) in Porter v. Williams, 9 JST. Y. 
151. Applied with Ocean Nat. Bank v. 01- 
cott, 46 N. Y. 12; Geery o. Geery, 63 Id. 
252; Estes v: Wilcox, 67 Id. 204; Allyn v. 
Thurston, 53 Id. 622 (Right of judgment 
creditor to institute proceedings to set aside 
fraudulent conveyance) and BrinkerhofF v. 
Brown, 4 Johns. Gh. 674; ^haw ». D wight, 
27 N. Y. 244, disting'd in Adsit v. Butler, 
87 Id. 585. Decision in 6 Barb, applied 
(Jurisdiction to sustain action to remove 
cloud on title) in Johnson v. Stevens, 13 
Bow. Pr. 133. 
Cheeney v. Arnold, 18 Barb. 434. AfFd in 
15 M. Y. 345. Decision in 18 Barb, fol- 
. lowed (Execution of will) in Norton v. Nor- 
ton, 2 Redf. 6, 18. 
Cheesbrough v. Agate, 7 Abb. Pr. 32; s. c, 
26 Barb. 603, where the facts are more 
fully stated ; but the opinion is erroneously 
said in the latter report to have been ren- 
dered at Special Term. 
Cheesebrough, Matter of, 78 K Y. 232. Fol- 
lowed (Land, when not to be appropriated 
for drains) in Matter of Church of the Holy 
Sepulchre, 61 Mow. Pr. 315, 325. Followed 
(Vacation of assessment; in Matter of Ken- 
dall, 83 N. Y. 612. 
Cheesebrough v. Millard, 1 Johns. Gh. 409 ; 
s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 494, with note, wherein it 
is shown to have been regarded as high au- 
thority in Story onEq. Jtir. § 469, and else- 
where, on the doctrine of contribution and 
subrogation. Applied (Constructive notice 
to mortgagee, of incumbrances or convey- 
ances) in Stuyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb. Gh. 
157, which aff'd 1 Sandf. Gh. 426, which 
see. Applied to one having contract to 
purchase, — in Moyer v. Hinman, 13 JV. Y. 
184. Approved (Duty of creditor -having 
lien on two funds) in Ingalls v. Morgan, 
10 1ST. Y. 187'; Guion v. Knapp, 6 Paige, 43. 
Explained in Molson's Bk. of Montreal v. 
Howard, 40 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 22. Ap- 
. plied (Rights of surety against creditor) in 
Pardee i>. Van Anken, 6 Leg. Obs. 381. 
Applied (Jurisdiction of equity to prevent 
multiplicity of actions) in Erie R'y Co. ■». 
Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 653. Approved and ap- 



plied (Assignment of Hen) in Lagow v. 
Badollet, 1 Blachf. (Ind.) 416; s. "a, 12 
Am. Dec. 258, with note collecting oases 
pro and con. Followed (Rights of junior lien 
creditors) in Pennsylvania Bank v. Winger, 
1 Rawle {Pa.) 295; s. c, 18 Am. Dec. 633, 
with note. 
Cheeseman v. Sturgis, 6 Bosw. 520. Further 
decision in 9 Id. 246. 

v. Wiggins. 1 Sup'm. Gt. (T. SG.) 95. 

Cited (Accounting upon dissolution of part- 
nership by death) in Story on Partn. 7 ed. 
§§ 347, n., 348, n. 
Cheever v. Saratoga Co. Bank, 47 How. Pr. 
376. Overruled (Perpetuation of testimony, 
as matter of right) in Martin v. Hicks, 1 
Abb. N.C.Ztl. 
Cliegaray v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. 409. Aft'd 
in 5 JST. Y. 376. Decision in 3 Sandf. fol- 
lowed (Effect upon general words of par- 
ticular words that precede them) in Cleaver 
v. Cleaver, 39 Wis. 96; s. c, 20 Am. R. 30, 
34. Decision in 5 N. Y. applied (Assessors 
— when acting within jurisdiction) in Foster 
v. Van Wyck, 2 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 172;. 
Bell v. Pierce, 51 JY. Y. 15. Approved in 
Barhyte «. Shepherd, 35 Id. 243, 252. 
Disting'd and applied in Nat. Bk. of Che- 
mung v. City of Elmira, 53 Id. 54. Fok 
lowed in Matter of N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 
77 Id. 342. Applied (Warrant for col- 
lection of taxes, when a protection) in 
Patchin v. Ritter, 27 Barb. 37; Johnsons. 
Learn, 30 Barb. 618. Cited as authority in 
Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 E D. Smith, 
696. Limited (Impeaching proceedings for 
want of jurisdiction) in Roderigas v. East 
River Sav'gs Inst. 43 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 
231. Reviewed with other cases (Process 
as protection) in Bullymore «. Cooper, 2 
Lans. 75. Applied (Action of assessors 
not to be reviewed collaterally) in Rector, 
&c. of Trinity Church v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 10 How. Pr. 138. Cited as author- 
ity in Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, 37 
N~. Y. 515. Dictum overruled (Exemption 
of private school property from taxation) 
in Ohegaray v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 13 Id. 
231. 

v. Mayor. &c. of N. Y., 2 Duer, 521. 

Rev'd in 13 XT. Y. 220. Decision in 13 
N. Y. disting'd (Recovery of amount of 
illegal tax) in Newman v. Supervisors of 
Livingston, 45 K Y. 676. 
Chemical Nat. B'k t. Kohner, 8 Daly, 530; 
s. c, 58 How. Pr. 267. Rev'd in 85 Id. 
189. 
Chemung, &c. Bank v. Bradner, 44 N. Y. 
680. Explained (Partnership— liability for. 
acts of copartners) in 1 Gollyer on Partn. 
§ 412, n. 1, Wood's Am. ed. 
Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 K Y. 
254. Rule as to void judgments qualified in 
respect to ministerial officers, in Welles v. 
Thornton, 45 Barb. 390. Cited as authority 
(Inquiry into jurisdiction) in People ». N. 
Y. k C. R. R. Co. v. Hutton, 18 Hun, 123; 
Ferguspn v. Crawford,. 70 K Y. 265. Ap- 



CHENANGO BKIDGE CO.-CHILD. 



149 



plied in Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Roht. 199. 
Applied (Inquiry into jurisdiction of U. S. 
District Court) in Ansonia Bras9 & Copper 
Co. u. New Lamp Chimney Co., 64 Barb. 
435. 

Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bingliamton 
Bridge Co., 27 N. Y. 87. Rcv'd in 3 
Wall. 51. 

— v. Lewis, 63 Barb. 111. 'See Mayor, 
&c. of Albany v. Cunliff. Disting'd (Lia- 
bility for nuisance to which others have con- 
tributed) in Chipman v. Palmer, 77 iV. Y. 
51, 56. Followed with Irvine u.Wood, 51 Id. 
224 (Liability of builder and user of unlaw- 
ful structure) in Taylor v. Metropolitan 
El. R'y Co. 49 Super. Ct. (Jl & S.) 311, 340. 

v. Paige, 8 Hun, 292. Bev'd in 83 if. Y 

178; s. c, 38 Am. B. 407. See Hooker «. 
Cummings. Compare (Riparian rights) 
Smith v. City of Rochester, 92 if. Y. 463. 

Cheney T. Arnold, 15 N. Y. 345. See Fenton 
v. Reed. Followed (Presumption as to laws 
of another State) in McCullock v. Norwood, 
36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 180, 187. Approved 
(Marriage per verba de faturo, followed by 
carnal intercourse) in Holmes v. Holmes, 1 
Abb. U. S. 539. Cited with Starr v. 
Peck, 1 Hill, 270, in fyler on Inf. & Gov. 
2 ed. § 616. Discussed in 1 Bish. on Mar. 
& D. § 256, 6 ed. See also Abb. Tr. Ev. 80. 

v. Beals, 47 Barb. 523. Superseded 

(Right of executor to sue individually) by 
Code Civ. Fro. § 1814. 

v. Fisk, 22 Bow. Br. 236. Explained 

(Remedy for misjoinder in one count) in 
Harris v. Eldridge, 5 Abb. if. G. 278, 281. 
Disting'd in Barton v. Speis, 5 Bun, 61. 
But see Harris v. Eldridge, 5 Abb. if. C. 
278. 

T. Garfoutt, 5 How. Br. 467. Followed 

(Relevancy of allegations of fraud in com- 
plaint) in Field v. Morse, 8 How. Pr. 47. 
as having been approved by the Court of 
Appeals. 

t. Troy Hospital Assoc. , 65 If. Y. 282. 

Followed (Mechanics' lien — payments in ad- 
vance) in Post ■». Campbell, 83 if. Y. 279, 
284. 

v. Woodruff, 45 IT. Y. 98, 100. Applied 

(Rights of purchaser at foreclosure sale) - in 
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Balch, 4 Abb. if. C. 
200, 202. 

Cheviot v. Barker, 2 Johns. 340; s. c, 3 
Am. Dee. 437. See Brown «. Cattaraugus 
County Mutual Ins. Co. 

Chesebrongh, Matter of, 56 How. Pr. 460. 
Affd in 17 Bun, 561, and that affd in 78 
if. Y. 232. See Matter of Cheesebrough. 

Chester v. Bank of Kingston, 16 N. Y. 330. 
Disting'd (Effect of failure of consideration) 
in Weston v. Chamberlain, 56 Barb. 424. 
Applied (Surety not discharged by contract 
made with his consent) in Wright v. Storrs, 
6 Bosw. 611. Explained (Parol evidence of 
understanding existing at time of written 
contract) in N. Y. Exchange Co. v. De Wolff, 
5 Bosw. 593, 607 ; Lewis v. Jones, 7 Id. 
300, 370. Disting'd in Campbell v. Tate, 7 



Lans. 370. Applied in Bainbridge v. Rich- 
mond, 17 Hun, 393. 

v. Corastoek, 6 Robt.l. Affd in 40 

jff. Y. 575. See Marsh v. Falker. Decision 
in 40 N.'Y. followed {Scienter necessary to 
constitute fraud) in Brown v. Ashbough, 40 
How. Pr. 226, 238; Morehouse v. Yeager, 
41 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 135, 146. Compared 
and discussed in Livingston v. Keech, 34 
Super Ct. (J. & S.) 553. 

v. Dickerson, 52 Barb. 349. Affd in 

54 if. Y. 1; s.c, 13 Am. £. 550. See 
Buckley e. Buckley. Decision in 54 if. Y. 
followed (Parol proof of partnership as to 
real estate) in Traphagen v. Burt, 67 if. Y. 
33; Williams *. Gillies, 53 How. Pr. 429; 
Bissell v. Harrington, IS -Hun, 83. Disting'd 
in Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 if. Y. 479. 
Followed and approved, in Holmes ■». Mc- 
Cray, 51 Ind. 358 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 735. 
Discussed in 2 Collyeron Parln. § 700, n. 1, 
Wood's Am. ed. Cited in Story on Partn. 
7 ed. § 83, n. Followed (Responsibility for 
fraud of copartner) in Getty v. Devlin, 54 
if. Y. 413. Discussed in 1 Colly er on Parln. 
§ 446, Wood's Am. ed. 

v. Dorr, 41 if. Y. 279. To the contrary 

(Liability of maker of accommodation note 
taken after maturity) see First Nat. B'k of 
Salem ». Grant, 71 Me. 374, with note. In- 
cluded in 1 Ames Cases on B. & if. 793. 
Disting'd (Rights of bona fide holder for 
value of note) in Eckhert v. Ellis, 26 Hun, 
663. 

Chesterman v. Eyland, 74 if. Y. 452. 
Further decision in 17 Hun, 520, which was 
aft'd in 81 if. Y. 398. 

Chicago & Great Eastern R. Co. v. Dare. 
See Trevor v. Wood. 

Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cow. 39; s. c, 15 
Am. Bee. 238, 242, with note, wherein it is 
said to have been repeatedly recognized as 
an authority in N. Y. See Bank of Newburgh 
v. Seymour; Mechanic's Bank ». Minthorne. 
Disting'd (Amendment of judgment) in 
Giant v. Griswold, 21 Hun, 511; Butler v. 
Lewis, 10 Wend. 544. Applied in Hunt v. 
Grant. 19 Wend. 90; Geller v. Hoyt, 7 How. 
Pr. 267. Criticised as extreme (Allowing 
filing nunc pro tunc) in People v. Superior 
Court of N. Y., 18 Wend. 675. Applied 
(Filing record nunc pro tune to sustain 
execution) in Bradford v. Read, 2 Sandf. 
Gh. 163 ; Jones v. Porter, 6 How. Pr. 289. 
Followed with Seaman v. Drake, 1 Cat. 
9, and other cases (Amendment of record) 
in King v. State Bank, 9 Arh. 185; s. c, 
47 Am. Dec. 739, with note. 

v. Livingston, 2 Sandf. 718. Followed 

(Examination of party before trial) in Wat- 
son v. Gage, 12 Abb. Pr. 215. Reviewed 
with other cases, in Phoenix v. Dupuy, 7 
Daly, 238, 242. 

Child v. Brace, 4 Paige, 309. Followed 
(Creditor's action — when maintainable 
against several) in Field v. -Chapman, 13 
Abb. Pr. 320, 326. Followed (Jurisdiction 
of equity) in Dunlevy v. Tallmadge, 32 if. Y.' 



150 



CHILD— CHPJ3TIE. 



45V. , Quoted (Creditor's lien before filing 
bill for discovery of property) in Wait on 
Fraud. Conv. § 75. 

v. Chappell. See Cowenhove'n v. City 

of Brooklyn. 

v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369. Rev'g Starr v. 

Child, 20 Wend. 149. Subsequent decision 
in 5 Ben. 599. See Ex parte Jennings. 
Decision in 4 Hill, followed (Evidence 
of intent to extend grant to thread of 
stream) in Orendorff v. Steele, 2 Barb. 129. 
Cited as authority in Harris v. Thomp- 
son, 9 Barb. 360. Followed in Halsey 
v. McCormick, 13 K Y 298. Explained 
in Walton v. Tifft, 14 Barb. 220. Dis 
ting'd in Seneca Nation v. Knight, 23 Jff. Y. 
499. Collated with other cases, in Mills 
Thornps. on Highw. 3 ed. 50. Doctrine 
of Bockbe, Senator, adopted (Distinction 
between city and country lands) in Ham- 
mond v. McLachlan, 1 Sandf. 342. Criti- 
cised (Right of riparian proprietors) in 
People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 484, 
as to the doubts raised by People v. Tib- 
betts, 17 Wend. 571, having been removed 
by Commissioners of Canal Fund v. Canal 
Appraisers, 33 A'. Y. 461, 484. Applied 
to highway in Sizer v. Devereux, 16 Barb. 
163 ; Van Amringe v. Barnett, 8 Bosw. 368 ; 
Anderson *. James, 4 Eobt. 35. 

Children's Aid Society v. Loveridge, 70 K 
Y. 387. See Pruyn v. Brinkerhoff. Applied 
(Undue influence on testator) in Tucker v. 
Field, 5 Red/. 139, 180; Bristed n. Weeks, 
Id. 529, 532. Followed and applied with 
Horn v. Pullman, 72 N. Y. 209; Coit v. 
Patchiu, 77 Id. 533 ; Marx o. McGlynn. 
88 Id. 357 ; in Hagan v. Hagan, 1 Bern. 584. 
Referred to in 16 Am. Bee. 260, n., as well 
stating the settled doctrine. Quoted in 
1 Jarm. onWills, Rand. & T. ed. 141. Ex- 
plained (Executor disqualified from testi- 
fying) in Matter of Burke, 5 Redf. 369. 

Childs v. Clarke, 3 Barb. Oh. 52; s. a, 49 
Am. Bee. 1G4, with note, collecting citations 
thereof. 

v. Smith, 55 Barb. 45 ; s. c, 38 How. Pr. 

- 328. Rev'd in 46 JST. Y. 34. These decisions 
examined and reviewed (Corp'orale creation 
and existence) in 8 South. L. Rev. N. S. 531. 

Ohillingworth v. Freeman, 67 Barb. 379. 
Disting'd (Status to impeach fraudulent con- 
veyance) in Barton v. Hosner, 24 Hun, 467, 
471. 

Chipinan, Matter of, 14 Johns. 217. With 
this case and Matter of Smith, 16 Id. 102, 
compare (Attachment against paitner) Rob- 
bins v. Cooper, 6 Johns. Gh. 186. 

Chipman v. Montgomery, 4 Hun,' 739. 
Affd in 63 K Y. 221. Followed (Right to 
maintain action for construction of will) in 
Duncan v. Duncan, 4 Abb. N. O. 279; Trcw 
v Shannon, 59 How. Pr. 214. Disting'd in 
Keteltas v. Keteltas, 53 How. Pr. 05: Dis- 
ting'd (Jurisdiction of action to construe will) 
in Monnrque v. Monarque, 1 9 Hun 332, which 
was, however, rev'd in 80 K Y. 320, 320, 
which see. Applied in Wager v. Wager, 21 



Hun, 93, which was, however, rev'd in 89 JT. 
Y. 161, which see. Disting'd in Danser®. 
Jeremiah, 3 Redf. 130, 136. Disting'd (Action 
by one claiming in hostility to will) in Wa^er 
v. VYager, 23 Hun, 439, 442. Disting'd 
(Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in action for 
accounting) in Harth v. Bower, 30 Hun, 151. 
Approved (Jurisdiction over administra- 
tors) in 1 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 349, «. 1. 
See (Costs on appeal from final judgment! 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3238, n. 

v. Palmer, 9 Hun, 517. AfTd in 77 

H. Y. 51 ; s. c, 33 Am. R. 506. Decision in 
77 K Y. explained (Private nuisance- 
joint acts) in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 168 
n. 2. Cited in Woodruff v. North Bloom- 
field Gravel Mining Co., 11 Pac. C.L.J. 181 ; 
s. c, 16 Fed. Rep. 25 ; 17 West. Jur. 220, 
as expressly recognizing rule as to equitable 
action against parties severally contributing 
to a nuisance, other cases being collated. 

Chism v. Keith, 1 Hun, 589. Compare 
(Barring future contingent interests by 
judgment in partition) Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 1557. 

Chouteau v. Suydam, 21 N. Y. 179. See 
Peck v. Mallams. Applied (Affirming judg- 
ment, with reduction of its amount) in 
Sears v. Conover, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 182; 
Weed v. Lee, 50 Barb. 354. Disting'd in 
Whitehead v. Keendy, 69 N. Y. 468. Ap- 
plied (Extrinsic proof to show that contract 
was individual act of person executing it) 
in Lee v. Meth. Epis. Church of Fort Ed- 
ward, 52 Barb. 120. Followed (Right of 
executor or administrator to bind estate) in 
Ferrin v. Myrick, 53 Barb. 95, which was 
rev'd in 41 iV. Y 322, which see. Applied 
in Tradesmen's Nat. Bk. v. McFccly, 61 
How. Pr. 525. Disting'd but approved in 
Austin v. Munro, 47 iV! Y. 365. Disting'd 
in Hall v. Richardson, 22 Hun, 449. Fol- 
lowed (Common law right of executors to 
• compromise) in Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74 N. Y. 
45. Reviewed, with other cases (Authority 
to allow such- compromise) in Shepard v. 
Saltus, 4 Redf. 232. Disting'd (Delivery 
of written instrument) in Russell v. Freer, 
56 JV. Y. 71. To the contrary (Qualified 
delivery) see Pope v. Latham, 1 Pike (Ark) 
60. But see Abb. Tr. En. 507. 

Chretien v. Doney, 1 N. Y. 419. Dis- 
ting'd (Effect of election by lessee to extend 
period of lease) in Western Trans. Co. of 
Buffalo v. Lansing, 49 K Y. 499. 

Christian v. Gouge, 10 Abb. K C. 82. Fol- 
lowed (Suit by non-resident in forma 
pauperis ) in Anonymous, Id. 80, 81. 

Christern, Matter of, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
523. See also (Amending record of natural- 
ization) Matter of Desty, 8 Abb. H. G. 250. 
Approved and followed in Re Coleman, 15 
Blatchf. C. Ct. 406, 427. 

Christie v. Bloom iugdale, 18 How. Pr. 12. 
Disting'd and disapproved (New trial in 
ejectment) in Reed v. Loucks, 61 How. Pr. 
434, 436. See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, §§ 
1526, n., 1528, n. , Commented upon in 



CHRISTIE -CHURCHILL. 



151 



Sedgw. & W. on Tr.' of Tit. to Land, § 
593. 

V. Gage, 5 Lans. 139. Further decisions 

in 2 Sup'm. Gt. (T . & G.) 344; 71 N. Y. 
J 89. See Williams 9. Williams. 

Chrlstmau v. Floyd, 9 Wend. 340. Ex- 
plained with Burr v. Van Buskirk, 3 Cow. 
263 (Sufficiency of avowry in replevin) in 
Webber v. Shearman, 6 Mil, 20, 30. 

Christopher v. Austin, 11 N. Y. 216. Affg 
Vermilya 9. Austin. 2 K D. Smith, 203. 
See Dyett v. Pendleton. See (Effect of 
eviction of tenant in suspending vent) 
Lounsbery 9. Snyder, 31 V. Y. 514. See 
also Abb. Tr. Ho. 355. Disting'd in Mc- 
Kinney v. Holt, 8 Hun, 336. Cited in Col- 
burn v. Morrill, 117 Mass. 262; s. c, 19 
Am. R. 415. 

v. Garr, 6 If. Y. 61. See (Statute of 

limitations where one dies abroad) Gode Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 391, n. Commented upon in 
Throop's justice's Man. 2 ed. 180. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 13 Barb. 567. 

See Adriance v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. Cited 
■with approval, with Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 
195; Stuyvesant v. Pearsall, Id. 244; De 
Bairns. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 16 Id. 392 ; Wood 
v. Draper, 24 Id. 187 (Right of tax-payer to 
maintain proceeding to restrain authorities) 
in Newmover v. Missouri & Mississippi R. 
R. Co., 52 Mo. 81; s. c, 14 Am. R/ 394, 
th-jugh said to be questioned by later N. Y. 
decisions, as Roosevelt 9. Draper, 23 If. Y. 
318; Doolittle v. Supervisors, &c, 18 Id. 
155. 

Christy v. Clarke. See Bissell 9. Bissell. 

v. Libbv, 35 Sow. Pr. 119. Aff'd in 5 

Abb. Pr. If. S. 192. Decision in 5 Abb. Pr. 
If. S. applied (Joinder of causes of ac- 
tion against defendant individually and 
otherwise) in Day v. Stone. 5 Daly, 353. 

v. Murphy, 12 How. Pr. 11. Collated 

with other cases (Injunction —violation of 
trade-mark) in Thomps. on Prov. Rem. 
264. 

Chrysler v. Canaday, 12 Weekly Dig. 214. It 
appears by mem. s. c, 24 Hun, 137, that 
Learned, P. J., dissented. 

v. Renois. 43 If. Y. 209. Included (Note 

— how payable, to be negotiable) in 1 Ames 
Gas. on B. & If. 53. 

Chrystie v. Phyfe, 19 If. Y. 344. Disting'd 
(Pee given by will, when defeasible) in 
Gibson v. Walker, 20 Id. 476, 483. Relied 
on (Rule of construction in interpretation of 
wills) in Farish v. Cook, 78 Mo. 212; s. c, 
47 Am. R. 107. Quoted (Rule in Shelly's 
case) in 3 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 
175, n. 

Cliubbuck T. Vernam. 42 If. Y. 432. Ex- 
plained at length (Effect of exceptions to 
legal conclusions in case that contains none 
of the evidence — in action tried by referee) 
in Stoddard 9. Whiting, 46 If. Y. 627, 630. 
Followed and reconciled with Stoddard 9. 
Whiting (Right to look beyond findings of 
factl in Porter v. McGrath, 41 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 98. 



Church v. Ayres. See Canfield v. Westcott. 

v. Be.dient, 1 Cai. Gas. 21. Collated 

with other cases (Abandonment (marine) 
— dependent on actual state of affairs), in 2 
Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 ed. 678. 

v. Brown. 29 Barb. 486. Rev'd in 21 

If. Y. 315. See Leonard v. Vredenbergh. 
Decision in 29 Barb, disting'd (What is 
promise to pay debt of another) in Ellen- 
wood ii. Fulls, 03 Barb. 334. Decision in 
21 If. Y. compared with other cases (Ex- 
pressing consideration in guaranty) in Dau- 
ber 9. Blackney, 38 Barb. 438. Examined 
with other cases and approved, in Dunning 
«. Roberts, 35 Barb. 463. 409. 

v. . 29 Barb. 335. See other cases 

collected (Limit of cost of public works) in 
5 Abb. If. G. 468, re. 

t. Bull, 2 Den. 430; s. c, 43 Am. Dee. 

754, with note, wherein it is said, with 
citations, to be a recognized authority. Aff 'g 

5 Hill, 206. Quoted (Election in case of 
dower) in 2 Jarm. on Wills, Rand. & T. ed. 
24, n. 

v. Church, 3 Sandf. Gh. 434: Discussed 

(Dower in equitable estates) in 1 Washb. on 
Real Prop. 4 ed. 206. Explained (Dower in 
proceeds of sales directed by order of 
court) in Id. 295. 

v. Howard, 17 Hun, 5. Rev'd in 79 

If. Y. 515. Decision in 79 If. Y. explained 
and followed (Incompetency of defendant 
who makes no defense, to testify for co- 
defendant as to transactions with deceased) 
in Hill 9. Hotchkin, 23 Hun, 414, 416. 
Compare Wilkins 9. Baker, 24 Id. 32, 36. 

v. Kidd, 3 Han, 254; s. c, less fully, 5 

Sutfm. Ct. (T. & G.) 454. Further decision 
in G Hun, 475. Compare (Application of 
rules respecting new trials to trials of 
specific issues) Code Civ. Pro. § 1003. 
Collated and compared with other cases 
(Parol evidence to establish trust) in Randall 
v. Constans, 23 Narthw. Rep. 530, 533. 

v. Landers, 10 Wend. 79. Disting'd 

(Husband, when agent for his wife, and 
vice versa) by Van Hoesen, J., in Mead t>. 
Jack, 10 Weekly Dig. 403; s. c, If. Y. 
Daily Reg.< Mar. 24, 1883. Applied in 
Casteel -9. Casteel, 8 Black/. (Ind.) 240; 
s. c, '44 Am. Dec. 763. 765, with note. 
Disting'd in Benjamin v. Benjamin, 15 Conn. 
347; s. c, 39 Am. Dec. 384, 390. 

v. Maloy, 9 Hun, 148. Aff'd in 70 If. Y. 

63. Decision in 70 If. Y. disting'd (Usurious 
agreement as defense) in Nat. B'k of 
Gloversville v. Place, 15 Hun, 564, 567. 

: v. Simmons, 19 Hun, 220. Rev'd in 83 

If. Y. 261. 

Church of Redeemer v. Crawford, 14 Abb. 
Pr. N. S. 200. Rev'd in 36 Super. Gt. {J. 

6 S.) 307. 

Church of Redemption v. Grace Church, 6 
Hun, 166. Rev'd as to personalty, and 
otherwise aff'd, in 68 If. Y. 570. 

Churchill v. Hunt, 3 Den. 321. See Chace 
v. Hinman; Gilbert 9. Wiman; Matter of 
.Negus. Applied (Right of action on con- 



152 



CHURCHILL— CITY OF BUFFALO. 



tract of indemnity) in McGee v. Roen, 4 
All. Pr. 10; Drake o. Porter, 13 Sun, 662. 
Followed in Kohler v. Matlage, 72 If. Y. 
266. Examined with Wright v. Whiting, 40 
Barb. 235, in 1 Am. Dec. 47, n. Disting'd in 
McGay v. Keilback, 14 All. Pr. 144. Ex- 
plained in Crippen ■». Thompson, 6 Barl. 
534 ; Bancroft v. Winspear, 44 Id. 214. 
Approved and disting'd in Gilbert v. Wiman, 
1 If. Y. 563. Approved in Eector, &c. of 
Trinity Church v. Higgins, 48 Id. 536, 
which overruled 4 Bolt. 372, which see. 

v. Marsh, 4 E. D. Smith, 369; s. c, 

more fully, 2 All. Pr. 219. Questioned 
but followed (Necessity of seal on process 
of N. Y. Marine Court) in Talcott v. Rosen- 
berg, 8 All. Pr. If. S. 287. 

v. Onderdonk, 59 If. Y. 134. Followed 

(Possession enabling one to maintain pro- 

: ceeding to compel determination of claim to 

I vacant lots) in Cleveland v. Crawford, 7 
Sun, 619. 

• v. Prescott, 3 Brad/. 233. Explained 

(Intestacy — distribution — foreign domicil) 
in Willard on Executors, 404. 

T. Stone, 58 Barl. 233. Applied (Re- 
covery of money paid for membership in 

' association) in Weller v. Tuthill, 4 Sun, 
811. 

Cipperly t. Cipperly, 40 Sow. Pr. 269. 
Applied (Effect of word "heirs" in giving 
absolute estate) in Williams v. Seaman, 3 
Bed/. 150. 

Cisco v. Roberts, 6 Bosw. 494. Rev'd in 36 
If. Y. 292. Decision in 36 N. Y. disting'd 
(Pilots) in Gillespie v. Zittlosen, 60 If. Y. 
449, 452. 

City Bank v. Dearborn, 20 N. Y. 244. Cited 
(Effect of record put in evidence as involving 
an admission) in 2 Whart. Com. on Eo. § 836. 

v. Lumley, 28 Sow. Pr. 397. Approved, 

and head-note criticised (Arrest for frauds 
in foreign country) in Brown v. Ashbough, 
40 Sow. Pr. 226, 240. 

v. Rome, Watertown, &c. R. R; Co., 

44 If. Y. 136. Applied (Effect of delivery 
of bill of lading to pass title) in First Nat. 
B'k of Toledo ». Shaw, 61 N. Y. 295. Ex- 
plained in Man'f'rs, &c. B'k of Buffalo v. 
Farmers', &c. B'k of Buffalo, 2 Sup'm. Ct. 
(T. & G) 401. 

City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney. See 
Vernon v. Manhattan Co. 

City Bank of New Haven v, Perkins, 4 
Bosw. 420, Aff'd in 29 If, Y 554. See Gage 
v. Kendall; Sanford v. Sanford. Decision 
in 29 If. Y. disting'd (Who can deny plaint- 
iffs title to negotiable paper) in Eaton t>. 
Alger, 57 Barb. 179. Approved in Flint v. 
Craig, 59 Id. 819. Cited as authority in 
Sheridan v. Mayor, &o. of N. Y., 68 If. 
Y. 32. Followed in Brown v. Penfield, 36 
N.Y. 475; Hays v. Southgate, 10 Sun, 511, 
513, which was rev'd in 74 If. Y. 486, which 
see. Approved but disting'd in Sanford v, 
Sanford, 45 If. Y. 727. Decision jn iBosw, 
cited (Extent and continuance of power of 
bank cashier) iu Whart. Com, on Ay, § 685. 



City Bank of Rochester v. Westbnry, 16 

Sun, 458. Applied (Validity of provision 
in chattel mortgage enabling mortgagor to 
sell) in Brackett v: Harvey, 25 Sun, 502, 
506. Disting'd in Caring ». Richmond, 22 
Id. 371. 

City Fire Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 21 Wend. 367. 
See Babcock v. Montgomery Co. Mut. Ins. 
Co. ; Grim v. Phoenix Ins. Co. Followed 
(Loss covered by fire policy) in Scripture v. 
Lowell Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 356. 
Applied in N. Y. & Boston Despatch Ex- 
pressCo. v. Traders', &c. Ins. Co., 132 Mass. 
381; s. c, 42 Am. R. 440; Boon «. .^Gtna 
Ins. Co., 12 Blatchf. G. Gt. 24, 33. 

City Savings Bank v. Bid well, 29 Barb. 325. 
Followed (Law of place) in Jewell v. Wright, 
12 Abb. Pr. 55, 57, which was however rev'd 
in 18 Abb. Pr. 80; s. c, 27 Sow. Pr. 481. 

City of Brooklyn, Matter of, 73 If. Y. 179. 
Approved (Implied covenant in grant of 
land bounding on highway) in Matter of 
Opening 67th St., 60 Sow. Pr. 264. 

City of Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R. R. 
Co., 57 Barb. 497 ; s. c. more fully, 8 
Abb. Pr. If. S. 309. Affd in 47 If. Y. 475. 
See Dorwin v. Potter; Losee v. Clute; Tall- 
man v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co. Decision in 

47 If. Y. followed (Liability of contractor 
with city to third parties) in McMahon v. 
Second Ave. R. R. Co., 11 Sun, 348, 350; 
which was aff'd in 75 If. Y. 235, which see. 
Applied (Recovery over by corporation for 
negligence causing injury in street) in Town 
of Seneca Falls v. Zalinski, 8 Sun, 576. 
Disting'd (Liability of corporation for defect 
in highway) in City of Hartford v. Talcott, 

48 Conn. 525; s. c, 40 Am. R. 189. 

v. Fulton Municipal Gas Co., 7 Alb. 

If. G. 19. Disting'd (Transfer of franchise 
of gas company) in City of Brooklyn j>. 
Jourdan, 7 Abb. N. G. 23. 

v. Lott, 2 Sun, 628. Aff'd in 60 2f. Y. 

398, as Matter of Lands in the Town of 

• Flatbush. 

City of Buffalo, Matter of. 1 Buff. Super. Ct. 
(Sheldon) 408. Further decision in Id. 423. 

, , 64 If. Y. 547. Further decision in 

68 N. Y. 167. See Milhau «. Sharp. Decis- 
ion in 68 If. Y. disting'd (Taking land al- 
ready acquired for one public use, for an- 
other) in Stranahan v. Sea View R'y Co., 
84 If. Y. 312. 

, , 78 2V. 7". 362. Aft'g Matter of Carl- 
ton St., 16 Bun, 497. Decision in 78 If. T. 
eited as authority (Setting aside on motion, 
unauthorized proceeding to take land) in 
Matter of Department of Public Parks, 85 
If. Y. 459, 464; s. c, as Matter of One Hun- 
dred and Thirty-Eighth St., 61 Sow. Pr. 
284, 286. 

City of Buffalo v. Holloway, 14 Barl. 101. 
Aff'd in 7 If. Y. 493; s. c, 57 Am. Bee. 
550, with note. See Blake v, Ferris; Con- 
greve v. Smith ; Pack v. Mayor. &o. of N. Y. ; 
Storrs v. City of Utica. Decision in 7 If. Y. 
applied (Necessity of pleading facts to show 
duty) in Ramsay v. Erie R'y Co., 7 Abb. Pr. 



CITY OF NEW YOEK— CLANCY. 



153 



2V1 S. 180. Criticised (Respondeat superior) 
in Sulzbacker v. Dickie, 6 Daly, 409, 478, 
477 ; Gardner o. Bennett, 33 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 200. With Blake v. Ferris, 5 if. Y. 
48; Pack v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 8 Id. 222; 
Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 ii. 104; Congrev'e 
v. Smith, 18 Id. 79 ; Kelly ». Mayor, <fce. of 
K. Y., 11 Id. 432, examined and compared 
(Doctrine of negligence, and liability of em- 
ployers, contractors, &c.) in Creed ■». Hart- 
mann, 29 Id. 591. Disting'd (Liability 
for negligence of contractor) in City of 
Rochester <o. Montgomery, 72 Id. 65, 69. 
Applied in Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 Id. 
109. Applied (Liability for injury result- 
ing from defect in street) in Bliss ». Schaub, 
48 Barb. 343. Collated with Storrs v. City 
of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104; Slater v. Meisereau, 
64 Id. 138, and other cases, in 18 Am. L. 
Rev. 635, 663, where cities in N. Y., Mary- 
land, Minnesota and Ohio are said to be held 
liable notwithstanding the contract, where 
streets are made dangerous, while the con- 
trary is the case in California, Missouri and 
Pennsylvania. Doctrine discussed and 
cases cited in 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 360. 

City of N. Y. v. Mapes, 6 Johns. Ch. 46. 
Cited (When equity will interfere with a 
proposed work by injunction) in Troy & 
Boston R. R. Co. V. Boston, Hoosac T. &c. 
R'y Co., 86 JST. Y. 107, 126. 

City of Ogdensburgh t. Lovejoy, 2 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 83. Aft'd, it seems, in 58 
iV". Y. 602, but without opinion. 

City of Oswego t. Oswego Canal Co. See Un- 
derwood v. Stuyvesant. 

City of Rochester v. Montgomery, 9 Sun, 
394, Aff'd in 72 N. Y. 65. See Mont- 
gomery v. City of Rochester. 

v. Town of Rush, 15 Run, 239. Rev'd 

in 80 N. Y. 302. Decision in 80 N. Y. 
with Leonard v. Reynolds, 7 Hun, 73, dis- 
ting'd (Exemption from taxation of property 
held for government purposes) in People ex 
rel. Mills Water Works Co. v. Forrest, 29 
Id. 548. Disting'd (Action against town 
for money had and received) in Horn v. 
Town of New Lots, 83 N. Y. 100, 106. 

City of Troy v. Winters. 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. 
& C.) 256. Collated with Mayor of Hudson 
i). Thorne, 7 Paige, 261, and other cases 
(Right of municipal corporation to establish 
fire limits) in 29 Am.' R. 347, n. 

City of Utica v. Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161. 
Rev'd in Van Allen i). Assessors, 3 Wall. 
573. See, however, 2 L. 1866, c. 761. 
Examined (Taxation of stockholders in Na- 
tional banks) in Peoples. Comm'rs of Taxes. 
35 N. Y. 423. Cited as authority in People 
«>. Dolan, 36 Id. 68. Overruled in First 
Nat. Bank of Sandy Hill v. Fancher, 48 Id. 
524. Disting'd in Clapp t>. City of Burlington, 
42 Vt. 579; s. c, 1 Am. 11 355, 359. Exam- 
ined with Wilde v. Jenkins, 4 Paige, 481; 
Mickles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 Id. 118; 
Bennett v. Am. Art Union, 5 Sandf. 614, 
(Title to corporate property) in Button v. 
Hoffman, 61 Wise. 23. 



Claflin t. Baere, 57 Sow. Pr. 78. Aff'd by 
the General Term, and appeal therefrom dis- 
missed, in 80 N. Y. 642. 

v. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank, 86 Barb. 

540. Rev'd in 25 K Y. 293; s. c, 2 Am. 
L. Reg. N. S. 92, with note. See partial 
report of reversal in 24 How. Pr. 1 ; where, 
however, the opinion of referee is given. 
Decision in 25 if Y. followed (Notice of 
want of authority in corporate officer to 
negotiate paper) in Dabney v. Stevens, 10 
Alb. Pr. N. S. 47. Disting'd (Power of 
officer to certify in his own favor) in N. Y. 
& N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 
64 ; Titus v. President, &c. Great Western 
Turnpike Road, 01 Id. 237, 243, which 
affd 5 Lans. 250, which see. Cited with 
Titus v. President, &c. Great Western Turn- 
pike Road, 5 Lans. 250 ; Comstock v. Corn- 
stock, 57 Barb. 453 ; Reimers v. Ridner, 
2 Robt. 7 (Agent cannot use his trust for 
his own benefit) in Whart. Com. on Ag. 
§§ 231, 232. Decision in 36 Barb, applied 
(Estoppel of bank to deny authority of its 
officer) in Coohecho Nat'l Bank v. Haskell, 
51 N. H. 116; s. c, 12 Am. R. 67, 74, with 
note. 

v. Lenheim, 5 Hun, 269. Rev'd in 66 

N. Y. 301. 

v. Meyer, 43 Super. Ct. (J. &. 8.) 1. 

Rev'd in 75 Zf Y 260 ; s. c, 31 Am. R. 467. 
Decision in 75 N. Y. disting'd (Proof of 
bailee's Jiegligence) in Levy v. Appleby, 
1 City Ct. 252. Followed in Madan v. 
Covert, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 245. 

T. Ostrom, 45 K Y. 581. Applied (Ef- 
fect of assignment) in Budd v. Thurber, 61 
How. Pr. 206, 215. Upheld in George v. 
Tate, 102 U. S. 571. Discussed in Real 
Estate Trust Co. v. Bdch, 45 Super. Ct. (J. 
S.) 534. See (Promise by one to another 
for benefit of third) 11 Alb. L. J. 121; 13 
Id. 362. Compare Merrill v. Green, 55 
Jv". Y. 270. 

v. Sanger, 31 Barb. 36. Aff'd in 11 

Abb. Pr. 338. See Freligh v. Brink ; Lan- 
ning v. Carpenter. 

v. Tisliler, 66 Barb. 649. Affd it is 

said, in 55 N. Y. 657, but without opin- 
ion. 

Clancy T. Byrne, 58 Barb. 449. Further 
decision in 65 Barb. 344, which was rev'd 
in 56 K Y. 129; s. c, 15 Am. R. 391, with 
note, on the ground that the lessor was not 
liable, not being in possession, &c. Decision 
in 56 N. Y. followed (Liability of owner, 
&c.) in Homer v. Everett, 47 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 298, 300. Disting'd in Walsh v. 
Mead, 8 Hun, 391. Applied in Swords v. 
Edgar, 59 JV". Y. 31. Followed (Privity 
necessary to maintain action on covenant 
or contract) in Wilmington, &c. R. R. Co. 
ii. Greenville, &c. R. R. Co., 9 S. C. 325; 
s. c, 30 Am. Ii. 23. Said in 50 Am. Dec. 
780, n., to enunciate the same doctrine as is 
laid down in Nelson v. Liverpool, &c. Co., L. 
Ii. 2 C. P. Div. 311, as to a lessor's liability 
for injuries to third persons. 



154 



CLAN RANALD— CLARK. 



Clan Ranald t. Wyckoff. See Ten Broeck 
v. Sloo. 

Clapp v. Astor, 2 Edw. 384. Same principle 
(Interest of life tenant in dividends) in case 
of extra dividends — in Woodruff's estate, 1 
Tuch. 58. 

t. Bromagham, 5 Cow. 295. Rev'd in 

9 Id. 530. See Jackson v. Ellis. Decision 
in 9 Cow. applied (What constitutes ouster 
of co-tenant) in Trustees of Church, &c. of 
North Greig v. Johnson, 66 Barb. 123. 
Disting'd in Culver v. Rhodes, 87 K Y. 348. 
Approved and followed in Parker v. Pro- 
prietors of Locks, &c, 3 Mete. {Mass.) 91 ; 
s. c, 37 Am. Dec. 121, 124, with note. 
Followed (Adverse possession as bar to ac- 
tion for partition) in Burhans v. Burhans, 
2 Barb. Oh. 405 ; Therasson v. White, 52 
How. Br. 65. Explained and applied in 
Florence v. Hopkins, 46 AT. Y. 185. Applied 
(Who may maintain action for partition) in 
Brownell v. Brownell, 19 Wend. 370; Beach 
v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 Sow. Pr. 370. 
Approved, but referred to as modified by 
later decisions, as to necessity for present 
actual possession, — in Stewart e. Munroe, 
56 How. Pr. 195. Disting'd in Blakely v. 
Calder, 15 N. ?. 622, 627, which aff'd 13 
How. Pr. 476, which see. Followed (Ad- 
verse •possession by one entering under ex- 
ecutory contract) in Whitney v. Wright, 15 
Wend. 181. Followed (Adverse possession 
by grantee of tenant in common) in Bo- 

, gardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 200. 
Commented upon in Ang. on Limit. % 429, 
6 ed. Applied'(Deed given without right, 
as basis of adverse possession) in Sands v. 
Hughes, 53 JV. Y. 297 ; Bogardus v. Trinity 
Church, 4 Sandf. Gh. 633, 739. Examined 
with other cases, in Chalmers v. Wright, 5 
Robt. 717. Quoted and commented upon 
in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, 
§776. 

v. Fullerton, 34 N. Y. 190. SeeSchenck 

».. Dart ; Stewart v. Lispenard. Explained 
(Jurisdiction of Supreme Court on appeals 
from surrogates) in Marvin v. Marvin, 3 A bb. 
Ot. App. Bee. 202; Johnson v. Hicks, 1 
Lans. 157. Applied in Horn v. Pullman, 10 
Hun,4:7S. Disting'd (Opinion of witness as to 
mental capacity) in Real ». People, 55 Barb. 
576. Followed in Van Zandt v. Mut. Benefit 
Life Ins. Co. (Ct. of App. 1872) which was 
cited in Higbee v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins. 
Co., 66 Barb. 466. Approved and applied in 
O'Brien v. People, 36 N. Y. 282. Applied in 
Holcomb «. Holcomb, 95 Id. 316. Approv- 
ingly cited in 11 Am. Dec. 656, »., as main- 
taining a doctrine that is gaining ground. 
Included in Bed/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 105. 
Examined with other cases (Evidence of ad- 
missions of legatee as to testator's capacity) 
in La Bau '«. Vanderbilt, 3 Bed/. 403. Ap- 
plied (Right of testator to dispose of estate) 
in Seguine v. Seguine, 4' Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 
194; in dissenting opinion of Peckiiaw, J., 
in Tyler®. Gardiner, 35 A^ Y. 613; in Jack- 
son v. Jackson, 39 Id. 157; McLaughlin's 



Will, 2 Red/. 514; v Deas v. Wandell, 3 
Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 128. Examined with 
other cases (Insane delusions of testatprs) 
in Merrill v. Rolston, 5 Red/. 220, 252. 
Applied (Disregarding admission of improper 
evidence in equity action) in Patterson v. 
Copeland, 52 How. Br. 406 ; Foote v. 
Beecher, 12 Hun, 374, which was rev'd in 
78 N. Y. 155, which see. Compare Holcomb 
v. Holcomb, 20 Hun, 158; Schoonmaker v 
Wolford, Id. 168. 

— — v. Graves, 26 N. Y. 418. Applied (Dis- 
tinction between irregularity and nullity) in 
McMurray o. McMurray, 60 Barb. 117. 

v. Hudson River R R Co. See Hege- 

man v. Western R. R. Co. 

v. Meserole, 38 Barb. 661. Aff'd in 1 

Keyes. 281 ; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 362. 
See Walton ■». Walton. 

v. Rogers, 1 E. D. Smith, 549. Aff'd in 

12 N. Y. 283. See Vernon v. Manhattan 
Co. 

v. Shntt, 19 Abb. Pr. 121; s. c, 44 

Barb. 9 ; 29 How. Br. 255. Aff d in 44 
N. Y. 104. 

v. Wilson, 5 Den. 285. Disapproved 

(Impeaching witness by inconsistent written 
statements) in Romertz v. East River Na- 
tional Bank, 2 Sweeny, 82, which was, how- 
ever, rev'd in 49 N. Y. 577, which see. 

Clapper, Ex parte, 3 Hill, 458. Cited (Con- 
clusiveness of record of magistrate) in 2 
Whart. Com. on Ev. § 813. 

Clare v. National City Bank, 14 Abb. Pr. 
JSf. S. 326; s. c, 35 Super. Ct. {J. & 
S.) 261. Further decision in 40 Id. 114. 
Previous decision in 1 Sweeny, 539. ' De- 
cision in 1 Sweeny, compared with con- 
trary cases (Negligence — articles falling 
from buildings) in Bigel Gas. on Torts, 600. 
Decision in 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) applied 
(Liability for negligence of servant of con- 
tractor) in Burmeister v. N. Y. Elevated R. 
R. Co., 47 Id. 264, 268. 

Clarissey v. Metropolitan Fire Dept., 1 
Sweeny, 224. Followed (Liability of Board) 
in Donovan v. Board of Education of N. Y., 
44 Super. Ct. (/. S S.) 64. 

Clark, Matter of, 9 Wend. 212. Disting'd 
(Extradition) in Leary's Case, 6 Abb. M. G. 
43, 65. Followed in Brown's Case, 112 
Mass. 409; s. c, 17. Am. It. 114, 116. 

— — , , 20Hun, 551. Appeal dismissed, it 

seems, in 81 if. Y. 638, but without opinion. 

, , 3 Den. 167. Cited with apparent 

disapproval (Necessity of notice, in order to 
give jurisdiction in attachment proceedings) 
in Waples on Proc. in Rem, § 596. 

Clark v. Baird, 7 Barb. 64. Aff'd in 9 N. Y. 
183. See Brill v. Flagner; Pcchner ■». 
Phoenix Ins. Co. Decision in 9 A'. Y. ap- 
plied (Inadmissibility of parol evidence of 
acquiescence to vary description in deed) in 
Emerick «. ' Kohlcr, 29 Barb. 169; Hub- 
bell v. McCulloch, 47 Id. 302 ; Terry v. 
Chandler, 10 W. Y. 358; Drew v. Swift, 46 
Id. 209. Applied (Opinions as evidence) 
in Harris -o. Panama R. R. Co., 3 Bosw. 1. 



CLARK. 



155 



Approved in De "Witt v. Barly, 11 K Y. 
342. Applied (Opinion of witness as to 
value) in Bush «. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 
2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 629, 634; Teerpen- 
ning v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., 43 Jf. Y. 
283 ; Van Deusen v. Young, 20 Id. 37. 

v. Barlow, 4 Johns. 183. Followed 

(When rent carries interest) in Obermeyer 
v. Nichols, Binn. (Pa.) 109; s. c, Am. 
Dec. 439. 

■ t. Biningcr, 43 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 126, 

and Id. 344. The former affd and the lat- 
ter modified and aff' d in 75 JV. Y. 344. For- 
mer proceeding in 1 Abb. AT. 0. 421. 

T. Binninger, 38 How. Pr. 341 ; s. c, 

8 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 304, with note giving 
history of connected litigation. 

v. Bogardus, 2 Edw. 387. Explained 

(Evidence of intention of testator as to en- 
forcing claim) in Stevens v. Stevens, 2 
Itedf. 265, 286. 

v. Brockway, 3 Eeyes, 13. Quoted and 

explained (Receiver — judgment creditor's 
action) in High on Receivers, § 464, n. 4. 

v. Brooks, 2 Alb. Pr. N. 8. 385. Ap- 
plied (Adoption of special verdict) in Madi- 
son University v. White, 25 Hun, 490, 494. 

— — t. Bruce, 12 Hun, 271. See also Same 
«. Same, 7a!. 274. 

v. Burdetl, 2 Hall, 197. Examined 

(Continuing guaranty) in Farmers' & Me- 
chanics' .Bank v. Kercheval, 2 Mich. 510. 

v. Bush, 3 Cow. 151. See Smedes v. 

Houghtaling. Limited (Interest beyond 
penalty) in the cases cited under Smedes v. 
floughtaling, below ; but approved, in Tare- 
well v. Saunders, 13 Qratt. ( Va.) 354, 366. 
See, also. Mower v. Kip, 6 Paige, 88. 

: v. City of Rochester, 13 How. Pr. 204. 

Rev'd in 24 Barb. 446; s. c, 5 Abb. Pr. 
107; 14 Huw. Pr. 193. Latter decision in 
effect aff'd in 28 K Y. 605. See Bank of 
Rome b. Village of Rome; Beals v. Benja- 
min; Griswold v. Atlantic Dock Co. ; People 
v. Mitchell. Decision in 13 How. Pr. disap- 
proved (Constitutionality of statute author- 
izing town bonding for railroads) in Benson 
*. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 24 'Barb. 251. 
Re-examined in Williams v. Town of Duanes- 
burgh, 66 2V. Y. 138, by Allen, J., who 
had given the opinion in 13 How. Pr. Cited 
and compared in Thompson v. Perriue, 103 
U. S. 806, 816. Decision in 24 Barb, fol- 
lowed in Gould v. Town of Venice, 29 Id. 
450. Explained as affected by N. Y. 
Const, art. 8, § 11,— in Matter of Buffalo & 
Jamestown R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 485. Ap- 
proved in Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 
18 N. Y. 44. The decisions in Clark v. 
City of Rochester, examined at length in 
Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 Id. 
186. Decision in 24 Barb, applied (Statute 
when not unconstitutional as delegation of 
legislative power) in Bank of Chenango v. 
Brown, 26 IV. Y. 471. Decision in 28 N. 
Y. applied in Gilbert Elevated R. Co. v. 
Anderson, 8 Abb. N. O. 447 ; People "j. 
Acton, 48 Barb. 528; Village of Glovers- 



ville v. Howell, 7 Hun, 348, which was 
affd in 70 K Y. 291, which see. Examined 
in Metropolitan Board of Health i: Heister, 
37 Id. 676. 

v. Clark, 8 Paige, 152; s. c, 35 Am. Dec. 

676, with note, collecting citations thereof. 
See Bates v. Underbill. Disting'd (Bequest 
of residue for life, with remainder over) in 
Hill v. Hill, 2 Lans. 43. Followed (Duty of 
guardian as to requiring infant to maintain 
himself) in Kelahor «. McCahill, 26 Hun, 
148. Disting'd (Accounting by executors 
for proceeds of real estate that they are em- 
powered to sell) iu Jansseu v. Wernple, 3 
Red/. 233. Cited as authority (Right of 
executors to retain control of proceeds of 
estate) in Bundy v. Bundy, 47 Barb. 141. 
Followed in Edsall v. Waterbury, 2 Red/. 
50. Followed (Proof of claim made against 
estate by executor, &c.) in Wood v. Rusco, 
4 Id. 386. Applied with Adair v. Brimmer, 
74 A 7 ". Y. 566 ; Croft v. Williams, 23 Hun, 
102 (Liability of trustee for acts or omissions 
of co-trustee) in Earle v. Earle, 48 Super. 
Ct. (J. & S.) 18. Applied in Whitney v. 
Phoenix, 4 Red/. 198. 

— v. , 24 Barb. 581. Disapproved 

(Curtesy, how affected by«tatute) in Matter 
of Winne, 1 Bans. 508, 520, which was, 
however, rev'd in 2 Id. 21, which see. See, 
also, Hurd v. Cass, 9 Barb. 366. Collated, 
with other cases, in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on 
Real Prop. 289. 

— v. , 25 Barb. 76. See Petridge 

v. Wells. Approved (Trademark — use of 
same word to designate same manufacture 
as another) iu Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. 
Pr. 68. Collated with Paber «. Faber, 49 
Barb. 357; Wolfe v. Burke, 7 Lans. 151; 
Meneely v. Meneely, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
540, and other cases (Restraining one from 
the use of his own name) in 12 Am. R. 
410, n. 

— v. Cleveland, 6 Hill, 344. Disapproved 
(Second arrest) in Doyle v. Russell, 30 Barb. 
300, 303. Cited as authority iu Riley v. 
Whittiker, 49 A 7 ! H. 145; s. c, 6 Am. R. 
474. Disting'd (Letting prisoner to bail 
in county where arrested) in People v. Clews, 
77 N. Y. 39, 44. Collated, with other cases, 
(Arrest without warrant) in Bigel. Cas. on 
Torts, 276. 

— v. Coles, 48 How. Pr. 266. Further pro- 
ceeding in 50 Id. 178. 

— v. Cottrell, 63 Barb. 335. Rev'd in 42 
N. Y. 527. 

— v. Crego, 47 Barb. 599. Affd in 51 
A 7 . Y. 646. Decision in 47 Barb, disting'd 
(Charge on land creating trust) in Dill v. 
Wisner, 23 Hun, 123, 127. Cited (What 
constitutes ouster, as fact for a jury), in 
Highstone v. Burdette, Sup'm. Ct. Mich. 
Jane, 1884, 20 Northw. Rep. 65. 

v. Cumiiiings, 5 Barb. 339, 353. Col- 
lated with King ». Paddock, 18 Johns. 141; 
Eagle's Case, 3 Abb. Pr. 218, and many 
other cases (Presumption of death from ab- 
sence) in 29 Alb. L. J. 426. 



156 



CLAEK. 



— * t. Dales, 20 Barl. 42. See Keating v. 
Price, 20 Barb. 42, 64. Followed (Waiver 
of proof of loss) in Goodwin v. Massachu- 
setts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 73 JT. Y. 480, 495. 
Followed (Extension of time, by parol) in 
Burt e. Saxton, 4 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 109, 
111. 

— v. Denure, 3 Ben. 319. See (Justice's 
court — remitting part of verdict) Code Giv. 
Pro. 1881, § 3016, «. 

v. Dibble, 1H Wend. 601. See Woodbeck 

v. Keller. Disting'd (Evidence— quantum 
of, in civil cases) in Johnson v. Agricultural 
Ins. Co., 25 Ban, 251, 253. 

— v. Donaldson, 49 Bow. Pr. 63 ; mem. 
s. c, 3 Bun, 224; 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 
683. Affd, it seems, in G4 N~. Y. 631, but 
without opinion. 

— v. Eighth Ave. K. K. Co., 32 Barb. 657. 
Aff d in 36 K Y. 135: s. c, 34 Bow. Pr. 
315. See Phillips v. Rens. & S. It. R. Co. 
Decision in 36 JVJ Y. followed (Negligence 
in street car) in Lax v. Forty -second, &c. R. 
R. Co., 46 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 448, 452. 

v. Ely, 2 Sandf. Gh. 166. See TenEyck 

v. Holmes. See (Bona fide holder) 2 Alb. 

L. J. 327, n. 
T. Fairchild, 22 Wend. 576. Disapproved 

(Declaration need not be special) in King v. 

KeiT, 4 Chand. (Wise.) 160. 

— v. Farmer's Woollen Mannf. Co. of 
Benton, 15 Wend. 256. Included with notes 
(Negotiable paper — effect of a seal) in 2 
Ames Gas. on B. & N. 770. 

— v. Fisher, 1 Paige, 171 ; s. c, 19 Am. 
Dec. 402, with note. In Bogardus v. Clark, 
1 Edw. 266 (aff d in 4 Paige, 623) a subse- 
quent action concerning realty devised by 
same will, decision in 1 Paige, on validity 
of will as to personalty held not to bo con- 
clusive. Will sustained in Clark i>. Sawyer, 
3 Sandf. Gh. 351, which was rev'd in 2 
Barb. Gh. 411, and that affd in 2 AT. Y. 498. 
See Culver v. Haslam. Cited as authority 
(Evidence as to paternity of children for 
whom provision is made in will) in Davis v. 
Calvert, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 269; s. c, 5 
Am, Dec. 282, 298, wi'.h note. Included 
with note (Will — capacity necessary) in 
Bed/. Lead. Gas. on Wills, 287. 

Fitch, 2 Wend. 459; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 

639. See Bartley v. Richtmyer; Burlin- 
game v. Burlingame; Foster v. Scofiekl ; 
Martin v. Payne. Approved (Infant's right 
to collect his wages) in Swartz v. llazlett 
8 Cal. 118, 124. Applied (Who may main- 
tain action for seduction) in Certwell i>. 
Uoyt, Bun, 575; Lavery v. Crooko, 52 
Wise. 618. Followed (Exclusion of evidence 
of promise of marriage, in action for seduc- 
tion) in Whitney v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250. 
Not followed in White v. Campbell, 13 
Gratt. ( Va.) 573. 

v. Foot, 8 Johns. 421. See Hay v. 

Cohoes Co. Approved (Liability for spread 
of lire) in Do France v. Spencer, 2 G. Greene 
(Iowa) 462; s. c, 52 Am. Dec. 533, with 
note. Discussed in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 



502. Applied with Panton v. Holland, 17 
Johns. 92 (One doing lawful act, when not 
■ chargeable with consequences) in Burroughs 
v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 15 Conn. 124; s. 
c, 38 Am. Dec. 64, 68, with note. 

v. Ford, 1 Abb. Gl. App. Dec. 359 ; s. c, 

3 Keyes, 370. See McCartee v. Camel. See 
(Action by legatee against executor) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 1819, n. 

v. Fuller, 21 Barb. 128. Explained 

(Assignment for benefit of creditors— ^au- 
thority to assignee) in Burrill on Assign. 
§ 315, 4 ed. Discussed (Terms of sale) in 
Id. § 224. 

v. Gilbert, 32 Barb. 576. On second 

trial plaintiff excepted to rule of damages, 
and on appeal judgment was rev'd in 26 
N. Y. 279. 

v. Goodridge, 41 JV". Y. 210. See second 

report purporting to supply deficiencies, in 
44 Bow. Pr. 226, which was corrected 
(Notice of attachment of funds) in O'Brien 
b. Mech. & Trad. Ins. Co., 56 JST. Y. 52, 
which rev'd 36 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 124, 
which see. Decision in 41 B. Y. disting'd 
in Wehle v. Connor, 69 A 7 ! Y. 546, 552, as 
involving a question as to priority of 
creditors. 

v. Griffith, 2 Bosw. 558. Rev'd in 24 

N. Y. 595. Dictum in 24 N. Y. approved 
(Right of severance between tenants in 
common of personalty) in Channon «. Lust, 
2 Bans. 211. 

v. Hall, 7 Paige, 382. Further deris- 
ion, as Clark v. Hale, Clarice, 349. See 
Moore v. Burrows. 

v. Harwood, 8 Bow. Pr. 470. Approved 

(Nothing but cause of action to be stated in 
complaint) in Sands v. St. John, 36 Barb: 
628, 640. 

v. Henry, 2 Cow. 324 ; s. c, 7 N. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 800, with brief note, on 
proving deed a mortgage. See Dey v. 
Dunham. 

v v Holdridge, 58 Barb. 60. Collated with 

Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282; Butler s. 
Potter, 17 hi. 145 ; Willis v. Havemeyer, 
5 Duer, 447 (Judge not liable in civil action 
for judicial acts) in 25 Am. P. 694, n. 

v. Jones, 1 Den. 516; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 

706, with note, collecting citations. See Van 
Rensselaer v. Jewett. 

- — v. Loomis, 5 Duer, 468. Affd, as Clark 
v. Sisson, in 22 B. Y. 312. 

V. Luee, 15. Wend. 479. Overruled 

(Practice on attachment against non-resi- 
dent) in Bennett v. Brown, 4 A T . Y. 254; 
and see Taylor v. Heath, 4 Den. 592.- Col- 
lated, with other cases, in Throop's Justice's 
Man. 2 ed. 25. 

v. MeCann, 19 Bun, 13. Rev'd in 

Clarke ». Gibbons, 83 N. Y. 107. 

v. Marsiglia, 1 Den. 317; s. c, 43 Am. 

Dec. 670, with notes, wherein it is said to 
have been frequently referred to with ap- 
proval in N. Y. and elsewhere. Applied with 
Ueckshcr t<. McCrea, 24 Wend. 314; Master- 
ton 8. Mayor of Brooklyn, 2 BUI, 75 (Dam- 



CLARK. 



157 



ages for breach of contract) in Friedlander 
v. Pugh, 43 Miss. Ill; s. c, 5 Am. R. 478. 
Applied with Wilson v. Martin, 1 Den. 602 ; 
Spenoer v. Halstcad, Id. 606, in Polsley e. 
Anderson, 7 W. Va. 202 ; s. c, 23 Am. R. 
613, 6 IV. Approved in Hosmcr «. Wilson, 
7 Mich. 294. 

v. Masters, 1 Bosw. 177, 185. Followed 

(Freight not recoverable until goods tend- 
ered) in 12G5 Vitrified Pipes, 14 Match/. 0. 
Ct. 274. 

v. Mayor, &c. of Syracuse, ,13 Barb. 32. 

Collated with Underwood v. Green, 42 N~. 
Y. 140, and other authorities (Liability of 
municipality for abatement of a supposed 
nuisance which is not one in fact) in Cole 
■o. Kegler, 64 Iowa, 62. 
— v. Mayor of N. ¥., 3 Barb. 288. Rev'd 
in 4 H. Y. 338; s. c, 53 Am. Dec. 379, 
with note. Another decision arising under 
same contract, in 1 Keyes, 9. Decision in 4 
N. Y. criticised at length (Measure of dam- 
ages in case of contract terminated by one 
party against the consent of the other) in 
Doolittle v. McCullough, 12 Ohio St. 809- 
372. Included in Sedgw. Uas. on Lama. 
371. 

v. Meigs. 12 ^456. Pr. 267: s. c, 21 

How. Pr. 187. Rev'd in 13 Abb. Pr. 467; 
s. c, 22 How. Pr. 340. Further decision in 
10 Bosw. 337. 

v. Merchants' Bank, 1 Sand/. 498. 

Rev'd in 2 N. Y. 380. Decision in 2 K Y. 
explained and disting'd (Title to negotiable 
paper received for collection) in Commercial 
Bank of Clyde v. Marine Bank, 6 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. 33; s. c, 3 Keyes, 337. Confirmed 
and applied (Bona fide holder of negotiable 
paper) in Wyman v. Colorado Nat'l Bank, 
5 Col. 30; s. c, 40 Am. R. 133. Applied 
(Title to money or bills deposited in bank) 
in Metropolitan Nat. B'k v. Loyd, 25 Hun, 
101, 105. 
v. Miller, 4 Wend. 628. Applied (Lia- 
bility of one preventing owner of property 
from showing its quality and value) in Bailey 
fl. Shaw, 24 N. H. 297 ; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 
241. 
v. , 42 Barb. 255. On further decis- 
ion plaintiff had judgment in 47 Barb. 38, 
which was affd in 54 A r . Y. 528. See Adsit 
i). Brady. Decision in 54 N. Y. cited as 
authority (Damaged party not to increase 
amount of damage) in Beers v. Board of 
Health, 35 La. Ann. 1132; s. c, 48 Am. 
It. 256. 

v. Montgomery, 23 Barb. 464, 472. 

Commented on (Guardian appointed by 
surrogate) in Willard on Execvtors, 447, n. 

V. Niblo. See Jackson v. Plumbe. 

v. N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., 7 Lam. 

322. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 33. 
— — v. Norton, 8 Lans. 484; s. c, 58 Barb. 
434. Aff'd in 49 If. Y. 243. See People v. 
Supervisors of Chenango. Decision in 49 
M. Y. disting'd (Liability of assessors) in 
Stewart t. Fonda, 19 Hun, 191. Doctrine 
explained (Completing assessment roll) in 



Overing «. Foote, 65 2f. Y. 271. Followed 
(Substantial compliance with statutes regu- 
lating assessment and' taxation sufficient) in 
Albany City Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed. Rep. 
423. 

v. Ostrander, 1 Cow. 437; s. c, 13 Am. 

Dec. 546, with extended note on the subject 
of waiver of appeal or right of review. 

v Owens, 18 N. Y. 434. See Jackson 

v. Blanshan. Approved (Admissibility of 
deed accompanied with possession for thirty 
years) in 3 Am. Dec. 490, n. Cited (Evi- 
dence of death of cestui que vie) in 1 WasAb. 
on Real Prop. 4 ed. 115, n. 3. 

v. People, 26 Wend. 599. Followed 

with People v. Draper, 15 JT. Y. 543 ; Butler 
v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 324 (Courts, when not 
authorized to annul act of legislature) in 
Stewart v. Supervisors of Polk Co., 30 Iowa, 
9; s. c, 1 Am. R. 238, 243. Disting'd 
(Justice of the peace) in Wenzler v. People, 
58 XT. Y. 516, 524. Explained in People v. 
Morgan, 5 Daly, 161, 180. 

v. , 1 Park Gr. 347. Rev'd, on the 

ground that an intent to kill, though formed 
on the instant, may be a "premeditated 
design," in People v. Clark, 7 K Y. 385. 

v. Pinney, 6 Cow. 297. Applied (Effect 

of reversal of judgment on property rights) 
in Duncan v. Ware's Executors, 5 Stew. & 
P. (Ala.) 119; s. c, 24 Am. Dec. 772. 
Followed inMcJilton v. Love, 13 III. 486; 
s. c, 54 Am. Dec. 449, 454, with note. 
See, also, Ponder v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 207; 
s. c, 48 Am. Dec. 194. Approved (Trespass 
not maintainable for amount of a judgment 
which was merely erroneous) in Field v. 
Anderson, 103 III. 407. 

— v. , 7 Cow. 681; s. c, 9 2v". Y. Com. 

L. Law. ed. 263, with brief note, citing con- 
flicting authorities. See Gleason v. Same; 
Suydam v. Jenkins. Denied (Damages for 
breach of contract for sale of chattels) in 
Kennedy v. Whitwell, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 466 ; 
Parks v. Boston, 15 Id. 206. Preferred in 
Thomas v. Murray, 32 iv~. Y. 605, to Pinney 
v. Gleason, 5 Wend. 393, which is reconciled 
with Clarke v. Pinney. Discussed and quali- 
fied in Suydam v. Jenkins,, 3 Sand/. 614. 
Explained with Sturgis v. Allis, 10 Wend. 
355, in Lott v. Swezey, 29 Barb. 87. Ex- 
plained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 197, n. j. ; Id. 
205, n. i. Explained (Contracts — construc- 
tion and interpretation of) in 2 Pars. on. 
Contr. 500, n. s. 

— v. Rankin, 46 Barb. 570; s. c, with 
opinion of Daniels, J., in 6 Am. L. Reg. 
A r . 8. 368. 

— v. Richards. See Beardsly v. Root. 
v. Rowling, 3 if. Y. 216; s. c, 53 Am. 

Dec. 290, with note, wherein it is said to be 
denied (Effect of adjudication in bankruptcy 
on judgment) in McCarthy v. Goodwin, 8 
Mo. App. 380 ; but thought by the editor to 
be sustained by the great preponderance of 
authority, citing cases. See Dresser v. 
Brooks; Monroe v. Upton. Followed in 
Monroe v. Upton, 50 XT. Y. 593. Disap- 



158 



CLAEK— CLARKE. 



proved with Dresser v. Brooks, 3 Bart. 429, 
in Boynton v. Ball, 105 III. 627; s. c, 46 
Am. R. 577. Dissenting opinion of Bron- 
son, Ch. J., cited as authority (Power to 
vacate judgment after expiration of term 
where it was rendered) in Heckling*. Allen, 
U. S. Oir. Ot. D. Col. 15 Reporter, 387. 
Followed (Looking behind judgment to debt 
in insolvency proceedings) in Conway «. 
Seamons, 55 Vt. 8; s. c.,.45 Am. R. 579. 

v. Sawyer. See Clai* v. Fisher ; Stew- 
art v. Lispenard. 

v. Sickler, 64 JST. Y. 231; s. c, 21 Am. 

R. 606. Applied (Discharge of surety) in 
Marsh ». Dunckel, 25 Hun, 167, 169. Dis- 
ting'd and Sailly v. Elmore, 2 Paige, \497, 
cited in White's Adm. v. Life Ass'n of 
America, 63 Ala. 419; s. c, 35 Am. R. 45. 
Disting'd. (Accommodation maker) in Con- 
verse r>. Cook, 25 Hun, 44, 48. 

V, Sisson, 22 K Y. 312. Aff'g Clark v. 

Loomis, 5 Duer, 468. See Aeby v. Rapelye. 
Followed (Oral evidence to vary writing) 
in Fellows v. Wallace, 8 A bb. .JST. C. 351, 353. 
Applied (Estoppel of parties to instrument 
by representations outside its face) in 
Weyh v. Boylari, 85 K Y. 394. Collated, 
with other cases (Consideration — purchase 
of accommodation note or bill) in 2 Hare 
& W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 243. 
V. Skinner. See Pangburn v. Patridge. 

v. Smith, 14 Johns. 326. Followed with 

Wood «. Edwards, 19 Id. 212 (Recovery on 
general count, when precluded, after failure 
in proof of special contract) in Fowler v. 
Austin, 1 How. (Miss.) 156; s. c, 26 Am. 
Dec. 701. 

v. , 34 Barb. 140. See Quinn v. 

Quinn. Limited (Revocation of will) in 
Lovell v. Quitman, 25 Hun, 537. 

v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. Co., 11 Barb. 

112. Criticised (Liability of railroad com- 
pany for injury to cattle trespassing on its 
track) in 49 Am. Bee. 262, »., as going 
beyond the rule of the authorities holding 
to the common-law doctrine laid down in 
Tonawanda R. R. Co. v. Munger, 5 Ben. 
255 ; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 239, with valuable 
note, collating many authorities. Dis- 
approved in Jackson v. Burlington & Rut- 
land R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 162; and compare 
Corwin ». N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 3 
2T. Y. 42. 

V. Titcomb. See Partridge v. Badger. 

v. Tucker, 2 Sand/. 157, 164. Quoted 

(Part payment required by statute of 
frauds) in Benj. on Sales, § 193,. n. m. 
(Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). 

v. Union Ferry Co., 35 K Y. 485. Fol- 
lowed (Proximate cause of damage) in Ken- 
nedy v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 73 N. Y. 365, 368. 
Quoted and explained (Nuisance — care of 
animals) in Wood on JVuis. 2 ed. § 748, n. 1. 

v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 181. 

Aff'd, it seems, in 75 iv". Y. 612, but with- 
out opinion. Decision in 12 Hun disting'd 
(Suit to vacate assessment) in Kennedy v. 



City of Troy, 77 2T. Y. 493, which rev'd 14 
Hun, 308, which see. 

v. Vorce, 15 Wend. 193. Subsequent 

decision in 19 Wend. 232. Decision in i.» 
Wend, approved (Proving testimony of de- 
ceased witness on a former trial) in Craw- 
ford v. Loper, 25 Barb. 449. Decision in 19 
Wend, referred to as modified by late de- 
cisions (Improper evidence always cause for 
new trial) in People v. Gonzalez, 35 ^V. Y. 
49. 

v. Wethey, 19 Wend. 320. Approved 

(Controlling effect of description) in Clark 
v. Baird, 9 JST. Y. 183, 204. 

v. Wise, 57 Barb. il6\ s. c, 39 How. Pr. 

97. Rev'd (Question of fact, in case sub- 
mitted without action) in Clark «. Wise, 
46 N. Y. 012. 

v. Woodruff, 18 Hun, 419. Aff'd in 83 

N. Y. 518. 

Clarke. Matter of, 1 Tuck 119. Explained 
(Authority of assistant of surrogate in N. Y.) 
in Roderigas v. East River Savings Institu- 
tion, 43 Super.' Ct.(J. & S.) 217, 232. 

Clarke v. Baird, 7 Barb. 64. Appeal from 
decision on subsequent trial in 9 N. Y. 183. 

Clarke v. Bogardus. See Rickets v. Living- 
ston. 

v. Boreel, 21 Hun, 594. Followed 

(Service of summons) in Wood ». St. Louis 
Bolt & I. Co., 1 Git. Pro. R. 220, in prefer- 
ence to Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. 

v. Brooklyn Bank. See Walker v. 

Devereaux. 

v. City of Rochester. See Clark v. 

Same. 

v. Davenport, 1 Bosw. 95. Said in 

Towle v. Remsen, 70 N. Y. 303, 307, to 
have been aff'd by Ct. of App. See Towle v. 
Forney. 

v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674. See Mut. Life 

Ins. Co. v. Wager; Shotwell v. Murray. 
Applied (Effect of mistake of law) in Hold- 
redge v. Webb, 64 Barb. 22; by Cowen, 
J., in Root v. Stuvvesant, 18 Wend. 299. 
Applied in Champlin o. Laytin, Id. 417; 
Morton s. Ludlow, 1 Edw. 643. Dis- 
approved in Northrop v. Graves, 19 Conn. 
548; s. c, 50 Am. Bee. 204, 270, with note. 
Cited as authority with Mowatt «. Wright, 

1 Wend. 355, in Mayor of Baltimore v. 
Lefferman, 4 Gill (Md.) 425; s. c, 45 Am. 
Bee. 145. Cited as authority with Mowatt 
v. Wright, 1 Wei.d. 355; Lyonu. Richmond, 

2 Johns. Ch. 5 1 . in Union Ins. Co. v. City- 
of Allegheny, 101 Pa. St. 255. Opposed 
in City of Louisville v. Anderson, 20 An. 
L. R*g. N. S. 687, with note. Dicta hereia 
criticised in 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 322, as 
inconsistent with decisions, and as having 
been expressly overruled, though said to 
to have been followed by some of the text- 
writers. Discussed in 2 Alb. L. J. 450. 
Cited as authority (Admission that avoids 
statute of limitations) in Deyo «. Jones, 1!) 

Wend. 491 ; Hancock v. Bliss, 7 Id. 267. 
T. Gibbons. See Clark -o. McCann. 



CLAEK— CLASON. 



159 



■ v. Goodridge, 41 N". Y. 210. Rev'g Drake 

v. Goodridge, 54 Barb. 78. Decision in 41 
N. Y. explained (Sufficiency of notice of 
attachment) and report corrected in O'Brien 
<o. Merchants' and Traders' Fire Ins. Co., 56 
N. Y. 52, 55, which rev'd 30 Super. Ct. (J. 
& S.) 110, which see. See Code Oiv. Pro. 
1881, § 649, n. Aplied (Effect of service of 
attachment on bank, in Bills v. National 
Park Bk. of N. Y., 47 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
302, 309. 

v. Faxton, 21 Wend. 153. Questioned 

with Hollister ». Nowlen, 19 Id. 234; Cole 
v. Goodwin, 19 Id. 251 (Limiting carrier's 
liability) in Farmers' & Merchants' Bank ». 
Champlain Transportation Co., 23 Vt. 186; 
s. c, 56 Am. Dec. 68, 75. Commented 
upon in 2 Re&f. Am. Bailie. Cas. 54. 

v. Lowrio, 21 Hun, 618. Appeal dis- 
missed in 82 N. Y. 580. 

v. Morey, 16 Johns. 69. Cited as au- 
thority (Effect of war on contracts) in 
Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 501 ; s. c, 1 
Am. B. 142, 150. Reviewed with Buchanan 
v. Curry, 19 Johns. 140; Griswold v. Wad- 
dington, 16 Id. 438, and other cases, in 
Statham v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 45 Hiss. 
581 ; s. c, 7 Am. B. 737, 741. See (Limi- 
tations — aliens) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 
404, n. 

v. Rochester, L. & N. F. R. R. Co., 18 

Barb. 350. Applied (When equity will re- 
fuse to enforce performance of duty respect- 
ing real property) in Trustees of Columbia 
Coll. v. Thacher, 10 Abb. K C. 235, 240. 

v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 14 

N. Y. 570. See Poucher v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co. Relied on (Liability of carrier of 
animals) in Rixford v. Smith, 52 .V. II. 
355 ; s. c, 13 Am. B. 42, 50, with note, col- 
lating cases. Cited as authority in Louis- 
ville, Cincinnati, &c. R. R. Co. v. Hedger. 9 
Bush (Ky.) 645; s. c, 15 Am. R. .740. 
Followed with Conger v. Hudson River R. 
R. Co., 6 Duer, 375, in Evans v. Fitcbburg 
li. R. Co., Ill Mass. 142; s. c, 15 Am. B. 
19, 22. Explained in Ang. on Garr. § 214, 
n. a, 5 ed. Included, with note, in 2 Bed/. 
Am. Bailw. Cas. 300. 

t. Roberts, 12 Weehly Dig. 475. Re- 
ported in 25 Hun, 80. 

v. Sawyer, 2 K Y. 498. Followed 

(Jurisdiction by equity, in absence of ob- 
jection) in Monarque v. Monarque, 10 Han, 

• 332. Explained, and cases cited to the con- 
trary (Will — relief in equity to set aside for 
fraud) in Willard on Executors, 91. 

v. Sheehan, 47 N. Y. 188. Followed 

(Consideration must proceed from borrower 
to establi^i usury) in Madison University v. 
White, 25 Hun, 490, 407. 

— - T. Smith, 46 Barb. 30. Disapproved 
(Physician's books of account as evidence) 
in Knight v. Cunnington, 6 Hun, 100, 103. 

v. Tunnicliff, 38 iV. Y. 58 ; s. c, more 

fully, 4 Abb. Pr. K S. 451. 

v. Van Surlay, 15 Wend. 430. Aff d in 

Cochran v. Van Surlay, 20 Id. 305, which 



see below. Followed with Cochran v. Yan 
Surlay (Constitutionality of statutes author- 
izing sale of lands of wards, &c.) in Davison 
v. Johonnot, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 388; s. c, 41 
Am.' Dec. 448, with note. 

v. Wright, 19 Wend. 584. Explained 

and cited as authority (Denial of application 
of insolvent for assignment and discharge) in 
Matter of Andriot, 2 Daly, 28. 

Clarke National Bank v. Bank of Albion, 
52 Barb. 592. «Disting'd (Effect of certifica- 
tion of check by cashier) in Pope v. Bank of 
Albion, 59 Barb. 226. Disting'd (Validity 
of post-dated check) in Frazier i>. Trow's 
Printing, &c. Co., 24 Hun, 281, 283. 

Clarkson v. Clarkson, 18 Barb. 640. Approved 
(Interest of life tenants in dividends) in 
Woodruff's Estate, 1 Tuck 58. Followed 
with Matter of Woodruff's Estate, in Cragg 
«. Riggs, 5 Bed/. 82, 88. Disting'd in 
Scovel v. Roosevelt, Id. 121, 126. Discus- 
sed in 2 Perry on Trusts, 3 ed. § 546, n. 
Disting'd (Dividends, &c, whether principal 
or income) in Matter of Pollock, 3 Bed/. 109. 
Collated with Simpson v. Moore, 30 Barb. 
037, and other cases, in 24 Am. B. 109, n. 

v. De Peyster, Hoph. 424, 505. Aff'd in 

2 Wend. 77. See (Payment into court) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 743, n. 

v. , 3 Paige, 320. Dictum disap- 
proved (Necessity of issuing execution, for 
the purpose of removing obstructions) in 
North American Ins. Co. v. Graham, 5 
Sandf. 197. Disapproved with Mohawk 
Bank v. Atwater, 2 Paige, 54; Storm ■». 
Waddell, 2 Sandf Ch. 510 • (Necessity of • 
execution for maintaining action to set 
aside conveyance), in McCullough v. Colby, 
5 Bosw. 477. 495. Compare -Williams v. 
Hubbard, Walk. Ch. 29. Quoted in Wait 
on Fraud. Conn. % 76. 

t. Gifford, 1 Cai. 5 ; s.c.,81 Y. Com. 

L. Law. ed. 37, with brief note on changing 
venue. 

v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 

304. Cited as authority (Nature of powers 
and privileges conferred on railroad cor- 
porations by act of 1850) in Johnson ». Hud- 
son River R. R. 'Co., 49 N. Y. 455. 

v. Skidmore, 2 Bans. 238. Modified on 

appeal, in 46 N. Y. 297. 

Clasou t. Bailey, 14 Johns. 487. See Mer- 
ritt v. Clason. Followed (Subscription to 
memorandum required by statute of frauds) 
in Justice v. Lang, 42 N. Y. 493, and ex- 
plained in connection with Bailey v. Ogden, 

3 Johns. 399 ; Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 
1 Johns. Ch. 282 ; Benedict v. Lynch, Id. 
370. Collated with Justice <o. Lang, 42 
K Y. 493; 52 Id. 323; 63 Id. 653, and 
other cases, in 25 Am. B. 543, n. Ap- 
proved in Crutohfleld u. Donathon, 49 Tex. 
691 ; s. c, 30 Am. B. 112. Approved as 
an authority (Enforcing agreement signed 
by one party only) iu Old Colony R. R. v. 
Evans, 6 Gray, 25. Explained in Rogers v. 
Saunders, 16 Me. 92; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 035, 
639, with note. 



160 



CLASON— CLEVELAND. 



T. Clason, 6 Paige, 541. Affd in 18 

Wend. 369. 

t. Corley, 5 Sandf. 454. Affd as Clas- 
sen v. Cooley, in 8 JV. Y. 426. 

v. Morris, 10 Johns. 524. See "Wood- 
cock v. Bennet; Woodworth v. Bank of 
America. Applied (Subrogation of surety to 
position of principal creditor) in Townsend 
v. Whitney. 75 JV Y. 432. Followed in 
Lyon®. Boiling, 9 JJa. % 463; s. c, 44 Am. 
Dee. 444, 446, 'with note. Followed and ap- 
proved (Dismissing, as to one defendant, bill 
taken pro confesso as to him) in Petty v. 
Hannum, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 102; s. c, 36 
Am. Dee. 303, with note. 

T. Rankin, 1 Duer, 337. Quoted (Eject- 
ment—co-tenants — ouster) in Sedgw. & W. 
on Tr. of Tit. to Land, § 290. 

T. Shotwell, 10 Johns. 304. Rev'd in 

12 Id. 31. 

Clayton v. Per Dun, 13 Johns. 218. See 
Tenny v. Filer. See (Justices' courts— costs) 
Code Giv. Pro. 1881, 3 3075, n. 

v. Wardell, 5 Barb. 214. Aft'd in 4 

JV. Y. 230.. See Fenton v. Reed; Starr v. 
Peck; People v. Humphrey. Doctrine in 
second paragraph in report in 5 Barb. 214 
criticised as not law, — in O'Gara v. Eisen- 
lohe, 38 Barb. 300. Decision in 4 JV Y. 
approved (Presumption of legitimacy) in 
Caujolle ii. Ferrie, 23 JV. Y. 90, 95. Cited 
as authority (Evidence of marriage) in Rock- 
well v. Tunniclift, 62 Barb. 416; Cheney v. 
Arnold, 15 KY. 351. Explained in Wright 
v. Wright, 48 Barb. 4. Disting'd as in- 
applicable to action for divorce,— in Collins 
v. Collins, 80 JV. Y. 9. Applied in Davis v. 
Brown, 1 Bed/. 262; Minor ». Jones, 2 
Id. 293; People v. Gahagan, 1 Park. Cr. 
385. Disting'd in Badger v. Badger, 88 
IT. Y. 546. Discussed in 2 Pars, on Contr. 
79. Cited (Evidence necessary to overcome 
presumption of marriage) in Jones v. Jones, 
48 Md. 391; s. c, 30 Am. R. 466, 469. 

t. Yarrington, 16 Abb. Pr. 273. Ap- 
proved (Examination of witnesses under a 
commission) in Anderson v. West, 9 Abb. 
Pr. JV. S. 209. 

Clearwater v. Brill, 4 Run, 728. Rev'd in 
63 JV Y. 627; which followed a previous 
decision in 61 Id. 625. See Parker ». Wal- 
rod. Decisionin 61 JV Y. explained (False im- 
prisonment — defective affidavits) in Moak's 
Chderhill's Torts, 1 Am. ed. 194. Compare 
Code Civ. Pro. § 2906. 

Cleaveland v. Hunter, 1 Wend. 104. Exam- 
ined (Power of referee) in Ayrault v. Sackett, 
9 Abb. Pr. 154, n. 

Clegs v. American Newspaper Union, 7 
Abb. JV C. 59. Further proceedings in 59 
How. Pr. 122, and 60 Id. 498. 

Clemence t. City of Auburn, 4 Hun, 386; 
s. c, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 633. Affd in 
66 JV. Y. 334. See Mills v. City of Brook- 
lyn. Decision in 66* JV. Y. disting'd (Lia- 
bility of municipal corporation for injury 
arising from defect inside walk) in Urqu- 
hart v. City of Ogdensburg, 91 JV. Y. 07. 



Clemens v. Clemens, 37 JV Y. 59. Disting'd 
(Right to maintain action for partition) in 
Harris v. Larkins, 22 Hun, 488, 490. Ap- 
proved (Judgment as estoppel) in Bloomer 
v. Sturges, 58 JV. Y. 176. Applied (Effect 
of judgment in partition to bar contingent 
interests) in Brevoort v. Brevoort, 70 Id. 
140. 

Clement v. Adams. See Billings v. Jane. 

v. Brush, 3 Johns. Cas. 180; s. c, 1 

JV. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 661, with brief 
note. See Buckley v. Buckley. Followed 
(Sealed instrument made by partner, when 
binding upon copartners) in Price v. Alex- 
ander, 2 C. Greene {Iowa) 427; s. c, 52 
Am. Dec. 526, 530. 

Clements v. Benjamin, 12 Johns. 299. Cited 
with Pratt v. Hull, 13 Id. 334; Stuart v. 
Simpson, 1 Wend. 376; Bctts v. Jackson, 6 
Id. 173, and Loomer v. Meeker, 25 JV Y. 
361, in 24 Am. Dec. 620, n., as showing 
that in N. Y. the practice of compulsory 
non-suit is perfectly well settled, — the same 
rule being adopted in most of the States of 
the Union. 

v. Gerow, 30 Barb. 325. Re_v'd in 1 

Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 370; s. c, 1 Keyes, 297. 
See Dunham v. Waterman. Followed (State- 
ment on confession of judgment) in Brown 
v. Marrigold, 50 How. Pr. 248. 

— v. Yillage of West Troy, 16 Barb. 251. 
See Underwood v. Stuyvesant. Quoted and 
collated, with other cases (Highways — ac- 
ceptance by public) in Mills Thomps. on 
Highw. 3 ed. 63. 

v. Ytturia, 14 Hun, 151. Affd in 81 

JV Y. 285. 

Clemons v. Davis, 4 Hun, 260. Reported in 
6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 523. 

Clendining v. Church, 3 Cat. 141. Ques- 
tioned with Buchanan v. Ocean Ins. Co., 6 
Cow. 318; Juhel «. Church, 2 Johns. Gas, 
333, (Wager policy valid) in Ruse e. Mut. 
Benefit Life Ins. Co., 23 JV. Y. 516, 523. 

Cleu v. McPherson. See Dike v. Reitlinger. 

Cleveland v. Boerum, 23 Barb. 201 ; s. c, 3 
Abb. Pr. 294. Affd in 27 Barb. 252, which 
was affd in 24 JV. Y. 613. Decision in 24 
JV. Y. explained (Limitation of action by 
assignee in bankruptcy) in Stevens v. 
Hauser, 39 JV Y. 302, which rev'd 1 Robt. 
50, which see. Decision in 27 Barb, applied 
(Assignee in bankruptcy necessary party to 
foreclosure) under the Act of 1867, in Daly 
v. Burchell, 13 Abb. Pr. JV S. 264. 

V. Cleveland, 12 Wend. 172. Disting'd 

(Trespass on land adjoining highway) in 
Beck v. Carter, 6 Hun, 604, 608. 

v. Farley, 4 Cow. 432, Disting'd with 

Elwood v. Monk, 5 Wend. 235 (Guar- 
anty, when not within statute of frauds) in 
Durham v. Arledge, 1 Strob. (& ft) 5; s. c, 
47 Am. Dec. 544, 546, with note; and said 
to be in conflict with Simpson v. Patten, 4 
Johns. 422 ; Jackson v. Rayner, 12 Id. 291. 

v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 5 Hun, 523. 

Rev'd in 68 JV Y. 306. See Ward «. At- 
lantic, &c. Telegraph Co. Decision in 68 



CLEVELAND -CLUM. 



101 



N". Y. applied (Negligence in passenger car- 
rier) in Carpenter 1>. Boston & Alb. R. R. 
Co., 24 Hun, 104, 108;.Loftus v. Union 
Ferry Co. of Brooklyn, 84 K Y. 455, 
460.' 

T. Whlton, 31 Barb. 544. Followed 

(Jurisdiction of surrogate) in Savage v. Olm- 
stead, 2 Red/. 478, 482. See (Judgment 
against executor for decedent's debt) Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2757, n. 
Cleves t. Willoughby, 7 Hill, 83. See Dyett 
v. Pendleton. Followed (Application of 
maxim of caveat emptor to hiring of real 
property) in McGlasham v. Tallmadge, 37 
. Barb. 315 ; O'Brien v. Capwcll, 59 Id. 
504. Commented on (Recovery for use and 
occupation) in Hall v. Western Transp. Co., 
34 N. Y. 289. RcafFd (Lessor's liability as 
to condition of premises) in Jaffe v. Ilarteau, 
56 Id. 401. Applied in Post v. Vetter, 2 
K D. Smith, 249. Included in Lawson-s 
lead. Com. L. Cos. Simplified, 160. Fol- 
lowed in Foster v. Peyser, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 
242 ; s. c, 57 Am. Dec. 43, with note. Ap- 
plied (Lease when not to be controlled by 
oral agreement) in Wilson v. Dean, 74 A 7 ! Y. 
534. , 

Clews y. Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co., 
2 Hun, 379; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
669. Another proceeding in 49 How. Pr. 
117. 
Clickman t. Clickman, 1 A 7 ! Y. 611. Ex- 
plained and disapproved (Error in name of 
court in title of affidavit) in Bowman v. Shel- 
don, 5 Sandf. 657. 
Clifford v. Bam, 44 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 391. 
Aff'd in 81 A 7 ". Y. 52. Statement in latter 
' that the appeal is from the Supreme Court 
is incorrect. See Brown v. Cayuga & Sus. 
R. R. Co. Decision in 81 A 7 ". Y. disting'd 
(Liability for injury resulting from obstruc- 
tion, &c. in sidewalk) in Wenzlick «. Mc- 
Colter, 87 Id. 128. Applied in Dickin- 
son v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 62 How. Pr. 
257 
Clift v. White, 15 Barb. 70. Rev'd in 12 
N. Y. 519. Decision in 15 Barb, relied on 
(Merger of mortgage) in Welsh v. Phillips, 
54 Ala. 309; s. c, 25 Am. R. 679. 
Clinch v. South Side R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 154; 
s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 683. Another 
decision in Id. 224. With latter decision 
compare (Receiver of corporation — how ap- 
pointed) Code Cm. Pro. § 1810. 
Clinton y. Hope Ins. Co., 51 Barb. 647. 
Alf'd in 45 N. Y. 454. Decision in 45 
N. Y. disting'd (Effect of reference to 
survey, &c. in policy) in Steward v. Phoe- 
nix Fire Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 264. Applied 
in Vilas v. N. Y. Central Ins. Co., 72 A 7 ". Y. 
592. Explained (Right of insurer to subro- 
gation to rights of mortgagee) in Foster 
«. Van Reed, 70 Id. 26. Examined with 
other cases (Insurable interest of creditor of 
estate of deceased) in Rohrbach v. Gennania 
Fire Ins. Co., 62 Id. 60. Explained 
(Effect of words " estate of " in designating 
parties having; rights or liabilities on written 

I.— 11 



instrument) in Merchant's Bank v. Hayes, 7 
Hun, 535. Cited as authority (Effect of in- 
surance procured by mortgagee at instance 
of mortgagor) in Waring i>. Loder, 53 A 7 . Y. 
585. Applied with Hoffman v. JEtna Ins. 
Co., 32 Id. 405 (Construction of policy) 
in Morse v. Buffalo Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 
30 Wis. 534; s. c, 11 Am. R. 587, 591. 

v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511. Disting'd 

(Right to discharge surface water) in Waffle 
». N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 53 -N. Y. 11, 
13. 

v. Strong, 9 Johns. 370. See Hall v. 

Schultz; Ripley v. Gelston. Examined with 
other cases (Payment to emancipate person 
and property, when not compulsory) in 
Mayor of Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 QUI 
(Md.) 425; s. c, 45 Am. Dec. 145-151, 
with elaborate note collating cases. Ex- 
plained (Money had and received) in 2 
Chitty on Gontr. 943, n. i 3 , 11 Am. ed. 
Close v. Stnart, 4 Wend. 95. Applied (Re- 
covery back of money paid) to case of as- 
sessment in Mayor, &c. of Jersey City ads. 
Riker, 9 Vroom (N~. J.) 225 ; s. c, 20 Am. 
R. 386. 
Clothier v. Adriauce, 51 A 7 ! Y. 322. See 
Moore v. Cross. Disting'd (Surrender of 
notes as constituting holder for value) in 
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 81 K Y. 218, 
224. 
Clough v. Murray, 3 Robt. 7, 16. Disting'd 
(Accord and satisfaction as bar) in Law- 
rence v. Barker, 9 Daly, 140.. Disting'd 
(Discharge of sealed agreement) in Anthony 
«. Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 210. Approved 
and followed in Kuhn ». Stevens, 36 How. 
Pr. 275. 
v. Borst, 6 Johns. 37. Compare (Pay- 
ment by a stranger) Wellington v. Kelly, 
84 A 7- . Y. 543, 547. 
Clow v. Van Loan, 4 Hun, 184; s. c, more 

fully, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 458. 
Clowes y. Dickenson, 5 Johns. Ch. 235. 
Rev'd in 9 Cow.' 403. Followed with Gill 
i). Lyon; 1 Johns. Ch. 440 (Applying parcels 
of incumbered land in inverse order of their 
transfer) in Nailer v. Stanley, 10 Serg. & 
R. (Penn.) 450; s. c, 13 Am. Dec. 691, 
with note. Compare (Execution — contri- 
bution between owners) Code Civ. Pro. 
§§ 1481, 1483, mi. 

V. , 8 Cow. 328. Explained and 

disting'd (Seeking payment of judgment, 
when waiver of right to appeal) in Knapp v. 
Brown, 45 A 7 ". Y. 207. 
Cloyes v. Thayer, 3 Hill, 564. Approved 
with Vroom i>. Ditmas, 4 Paige, 520 
(Variance) in Richards ». Worthly, 5 Wise. 
76; and see Griggs v. Howe, 31 Barb. 100, 
102, and Catlin v. Gunter, above. Followed 
with Ward v. People, 6 Hill, 144 ; Brandon 
v,. People, 42 A 7 ! Y. 265 ; Connors v. People, 
50 Id. 240 (Privilege of witness to refuse 
to make criminating answer, purely per- 
sonal) in State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. £34 ; 
s. a, 20^1to. R. 6S8, 690. 
Cluni v. Smith, 5 Hill, 566. See Dana v. 



162 



' CLUMPHA— COBB. 



Tucker. Disting'd (Correcting verdict on 
juror's affidavits) in Dalrymple 1). Williams, 
63 N. Y. 361. " 

Clninpha v. Whitiug, 10 AM. Pr. 448. Ex 
plained (Waiver of irregularity in judgment, 
by appeal) in People v. Albany & Susque- 
hanna R. R. Co., 8 AM. Pr. N. 8. 122. 

Clussman v. Long Island R. R. Co., Jlun, 
618. Aff'd, it seems, in 73 K Y. 606, but 
without opinion. 

v. Merkel, 3 Bosw. 402. See Gaillard v. 

Smart. Limited (Conditional admission of 
evidence) in Kerslake ■». Schoonmakcr, 3 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 524, 527. 

Clute v, Bool, 8 Paige, 83.. gee Hone v. Van 
Schaick. Limited .and disting'd (Right of 
creditors to reach income of trust fund) in 
Williams v. Thorn, 70 K Y. 270, 279. 

v. Clnte, 3 Ben. 263. See Adams v. 

Dyer. Considered (Fractional parts of a 
day, when to be regarded) in Knowlton o. 
Culver, 2 Pinn. (Wis.) 243; 1 Chand. 214 ; 
s. c, 52 Am. Dee. 156, with note. 

V. Emmerick, 12 Hun,, 504. Further 

decision in 21 Id. 122v • Contrary to decis- 
ion in 12 Id. see (Ejectment) Tyler on 
Ejectment, 529. See, also, Abb. Tr. Er>. 
703. 

— - v. Fitch, 24 Barb. 428. Criticised and 
explained (Justifying attachment by proof 
that prior sale by defendant was fraudulent) 
in Hall v. Stryker, 27 iV. Y. 596. Explained 
in Wait on Fraud. Gorvo. § 263. 

— — v. Robison, 2 Johns. 595. See Gazley 
n. Price. Examined, with other cases (Rights 
of assignee of chose in action) in Bush v. 
Lathrop, 22 JST. 7. 544. Approved (Con- 
tract to give good deed relates to title) as 
stating rule correct in equity though other- 
wise at law, — in Parker v. Parmelee, 20 
Johns. 130, 132. Followed with Judson v. 
Wass, 11 Id. 525; Gazley v. Price, 16 Id. 
267, in Stow t>. Stevens, 7 Vt. 27; s. c, 29 
Am. Bee. 139, 142. Though said to be im- 
pugned if not overruled by later cases (citing 
Van Eps 'v. Schenectady, 12 Johns. 436; 
Gazley v. Price, 16 Id. 269; Parker v. 
Parmelee, 20 Id. 130), yet cited as authority 
with Jackson «. Ayres, 14 Id. 224, in Tin- 
dall v. Conover, 1 Spencer (iV. J.) 214; s. c, 
40 Am. Bee. 220, with note. 

V. Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175; s. c, 7 Am. 

Bee. 448, with extended note, wherein it is re- 
ferred to as a leading and early case and one 
.. very frequently • followed as to liability of 
innkeepers. See Cromwell v. Stephens. Dis- 
ting'd (Possession that creates innkeeper's 
liability) in. Albin v. Preslv, 8 K H. 4t)8"; 
s. a,' 29 Am. Dec. 679, 681, with note. 
Explained in 2 Pars, on Gontr. 154, n. p. 

Clyde & Rose Plank road Co. v. Baker, 12 
How. Pr. 371. AfFd in 22 Barb. 323. 

Coakley v. Chamberlain. See Rolls v. De 
Leyer. 

Coates, Matter of, 18 Barb. 452. Rev'd in 3 

Abb. Ct. App. Bee. 231. See Donnelly «. 

, Corbett. Decision in 3 Abb. Gt. App. Bee. 

approved (Effect of foreign discharge in 



bankruptcy) in Matter of Bonaffe, 23 N.-Y. 
169. ;: * Explained and limited in Munroe v. 
Guilleaume, 3 Keyes, 30. 

Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cow, 460, 475. See 
Collins v. Torry. Explained (Dower in 
mortgaged premises) in Russell v. Austin, 1 
Paige, 192. Collated, with other cases, in 
Sharsio. & B. Cos. on Real Prop. 342. 
Followed (Dower in mines) in Billings v. 
Taylor, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 460; s. c, 20 Am. 
Bee. 533 ; Hendrix v. McBeth, 61 Ind. 473 ; 
s. c, 28 Am. jR.'680. Cited as authority in 
Lcnfers v. Ilenke, 73 III: 405 ; s. c, 24 Am. 
R. 263. Discussed in 1 Washb. on Meal Prop. 
4 ed. 208. 

v. Coates, 1 Buer, 664. Disting'd (What 

is final decision that plaintiff was not en- 
titled to injunction) in Neugent v. Swan, 61 
Hoio. Pr. 40. 

t. Goddard, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & £) 118. 

Compare (Allowance in addition to costs) 
Code Civ. Pro. % 3252. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 7 Cow. 585. Ap- 
proved (Constitutionality of burial laws) in 
•West Sav.- Fund v. City of Philadelphia, 31 
Penn. 175. Applied (Power of municipal 
corporations to anniflStheir grants) in Mayor;" 
&c. of Now York v. Second Avenue R. R. 
Co., 32 N. Y. 261. 

Coats v. Hoi brook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 586. Ap- 
proved (Trade-marks) in Amoskeag Manuf. 
Co. «. Spear, 2 Sandf. 613. Followed with 
Bell v. Locke, 8 Paige, 75 ; Stone v. Carlan, 
2 Sandf. 738, as leading cases, in Marsh c. 
Billings, 7 Cwh. (Mass.) 322 ; s. c, 54 Am. 
Bee. 723, with note. Quoted and collated 
with other cases, in Bigel. Gas. on Torts, 70, 
71. See 3 Alb. L. J. 143. Cited as au- 
thority with Spottswood v. Clark, 2 Sandf. 
Ch. 629 (Damages for violation of trade- 
mark) in Graham v. Plate, 40 Gal. 593; 
s. c, 6 Am. R. 639, 641. 

v. People, 4 Park. Or. 662. Rev'd on 

the point that defendant was not within the 
statute, in 22 K Y. 245. 

v. Shepard, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 404; s.c, 

more fully, as Coats v. Holbrook, in 2 Sandf. 
Ch. 586. 

Cobb v. Cornish, 16 K Y. 602. ' DistingM 
(Power to suspend entry of judgment) in 
Alfaro v. Davidson, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & 
S.) 408. 

v. Bows, 9 Barb. 230. Rev'd in 10 

fl~. Y. 335. Decision in 10 N. Y. applied 
(Right of principal to trace proceeds of 
property) in Dows v. Kidder, 84, Id. 121, 
.137. « 

— — v. Dunkin, 17 How. Pr. 97. Rev'd in 
19 Id. 164. 

v. Harmon, 29 Barb. 472. AfTd in 23 

N. Y. 148. 

v. Hatfield, 46 K Y. 538. Disting'd 

(Cbntracts — rescission for fraud) in Krumm 
v. Beach, 25 Hun, 293, 295. Applied in 
Anthony®. Day, 52 How. Pr. 38; Sinclair fl. 
Noill, 1 Hun, 82; Ross v. Titterton, 6 Id. 
284; Dows v. Griswold, 4 Id. 556 ; Gray 
v. Green, 12 Id. 602 ; Guckenheimer 0. 



COBB— CODDINGTOK 



163 



• Angevine, 81 K Y. 394, 396. Followed in 
Grannis v. Hooker, 31 Wis. 474. 

v. Knapp, 42 Super. Ct. (/. S S.) 91. 

Affd in 71 W. Y. 348; s. c, 27 Am. It 51. 
Decision in 71 N. Y. followed (Execution of 
instrument by agent) in Adamsou v. Elwell, 
49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 494. 

T. Titus, 13 Barb. 45. Affd in 10 If. Y. 

198. Sec Chappcll v. Spencer. Followed 
(Altering note, by adding name of maker) 
in Brownell v. Winnie, 29 N. Y. 400, where 
it is explained as understood in Burton v. 
Baker, 31 Barb. 261.' 
Cobine v. St. John, 12 How. Pr. 333. Op- 
posed (Limit of jurisdiction of Supreme Court 
in equitable actions) in Marsh v. Benson, 
11 Abb. Pr. 241, 250; but see SarsGcld v. 
Van Vaughner, 15 Id. 65. 
Coburn v. Wheelock, 42 Barb. 207. Affd 

in 34 N. Y. 440. 
Cochran v. Dinsmore. See Lamb v. Camden 
& Amboy K. R., &c. Co. 

. T . Gottwald, 40 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 442. 

Other decisions in 41 Id. 317, and 42 Id. 
614. Decision in 42 Super. Ct. overruled in 
effect (Costs to abide event) in Howell v. 
Van Siclen,^ Abb. iV. C 1. 
-, t. lngersoll, 13 Hun, 368. Appeal dis- 
missed in 73 1ST. Y. 613. Other proceedings 
in 66 N. Y. 652, and 11 Hun, 342. 

-. y. Van Surlay, 20 Wend. 365 ; s. a, 32 

Am. Dec. 570-588, with note, wherein it is 
considered as by no means settling the 
titles in dispute, though recognized as au- 
, thority by all the decisions, except William- 
son i'. Berry, 8 How. {IT. S.) 465; but the 
position there taken, is said to have been 
receded from in Suydam v. Williamson, 24 
Id. 427, by reason of the decision in Towle 
v. Forney, 14 N. Y. 426, which affd 4 
Duer, 164, 174, which see. See other cita- 
tions in note, Also reported in 1 3 R. Y. Com. 
L. Law. ed. 884, "with brief note. ; Compare 
Towle v. Palmer, 1 Pobt. 437;' Clarke v. 
Davenport, 1 Bosio. 5)5, 105; Towle %. Item- 
sen, 70 N. Y. 305 ; Williamson o. Field, 2 
Sandf. Ch. 533, 549. See Clarke s. Van 
Surlay. Cited as authority (Sale of contin- 
gent interests or estates of infants) in Bow- 
, man e. Tallman, 27 How. Pr. 225, 278 ; 
Matter of Trustees of P. E. Pub. School, 31 
If. Y. 591. Cited as necessarily disposing 
of the question, — in Leggett v. Hunter, 
19 Id. 461. Disting'd as to adults, in 
, Brevoort v. Grace, 53 Id. 251. ■ Belied on 
in Todd v. Flournoy's Heirs, 56 Ala. 99; 
s. ft, 28 Am. li. 758, 763. See to the con- 
trary Burft v. Mechanics' Savings Bk., 12 
R. I. 513. Cited as authority (Care of 
equitable estates of infants, inherent in 
Court of Chancery) in Anderson v. Mather, 
44 N. Y. 260. Applied (Extent of legisla- 
tive power) in People v. Clute, 63 Barb. 
386 ; People v. Quant, 12 How. Pr. 80 ; 
People v. Toynbce, 2 Park. Cr. 534. Ap- 
proved in Wynchamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 
412. Approved in Bradford v. Shine's 
Administrator, 13 Fla. 393 ; s. «., 7 Am. Ii. 



239, 245. Examined in People e. Gallagher, • 
4 Mwh. 249. Quoted and commented upon 
in Cooleij on Const. Lim. 5 ed. 121. Ap- 
plied (Duty of courts to declare laws un- 
constitutional) in Darby B.Wright, 3 Blatchf. 
O. Ct. 170, 174. Quoted in Cooley on Const. 
Lim. 5 ed. 205. 

Coclicroft v. Claflin. 64 Barb. 464. See 
(Undertaking on application by one of two 
or more defendants for vacation of attach- 
ment) Code Civ. Pro. 1831, § 689, n. 

Coekey v. Hard. 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 307; s. a, 
.43 Ho(o. 'Pr. 140. Affd oh account of de- 
fects in motion papers; but disapproved on 
the question of power, in 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 
183; s. c, 30 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 42, and 
45 How. Pr. 70. But see to the contrary 
(Power to appoint referee to take affidavit 
of party) Knoeppcl v. Kings County Fire 
Ins. Co., VI How. Pr. 412; Spratt v. Hun- 
tingdon, 2 nun, 341. 

Cockle t. Underwood, 1 Abb. Pr.\; s. c, 
more fully and affd in 3 Duer, 676. Decis- 
ion in 3 Duer approved, but disting'd (Right 
to discontinue after counter-claim set up) in 
Seaboard & Roanoke,, R. R. Co. t>. Ward, 
1 Abb. Pr. 46. Approved and followed 
(Power to deny discontinuance) in Young 
v. Bush, 30 How. Pr. 240. 

Cocks v. Barker, 44 N. Y. 107. See Worrall 
v. Munn. Disting'd and limited (Parol evi- 
dence to vary consideration) in Anthony ■». 
Harrison, 14 Hun, 189, 213. Cited (Con- 
tradicting acknowledgment of delivery of 
deed) ir> Whart. Com. on En. § 930. 

Codd v. Codd, 2 Johns. Ch. 141. Reviewed 
(Origin and character of the writ of suppli- 
cavit) in Adams v. Adams, 100 Mass. 305; 
s. c, 1 Am. R 111, 113. 

v. , 2 Johns. Ch. 224. Disting'd 

(Pleading in actions for divorce) in Mitchell 
■o. Mitchell, 01 N.. Y. 398, 403. Quoted and 
explained in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 606, 
6 ed. Discussed and approved with Qer- 
mond fl. Germond, .6 Johns. Ch. 347, in 
Chri itianberry v. Christianberrv, 3 Blaclrf. 
(hid.) 202 ; s. c, 25 Am. Dec. 96, 98, with 
note. 

v. Rattibone, 19 N. Y. 37. Followed 

(Banker not a corporation) in Hallet v. nar- 
rower, 33 Barb. 537, 542. Followed 
(Waiver, when not created by failure to ob- 
ject to admission of evidence); in Williams 
v. Mechanics' & Traders' Fire Ins. Co., 54 
N. Y. 577, 580. 

Codding v. Newman, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
364. Affd, it seems, in 63 K Y. 039, but 
without opinion. Confirmed (Retraction of 
renunciation) in Code Civ. Pro. § 2639. 

— — V. Wainsley, 1 Hun, 586 ; s. c, 4 Sup'm. 
Ct. (T. & C.) 49. Affd in 60 JV. Y. 644, 
but without opinion. Decision in 1 Hun 
disting'd (Covenant in lease, when not for- 
feited by failure to perform condition 
within time prescribed) in N. Y. Life Ins. 
Co. ■». Rector, &c. of St. George's Church, 
12 Abb. JT. C. 50. 

Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. 637; s. c, 



164 



CODDLNGTON— CQE. 



11 Am. Dee. 342, with note; 6 If. Y. 
Com. L. Law. ed. 1143, with brief note. 
See Bay v. Coddington ; Padgett v. Law- 
rence ; Root v. French ; Rosa ■». Brother- 
son ; Spear ». Myers ; Stalker v. McDonald. 
Followed (Precedent debt as considera- 
tion for transfer of negotiable paper) 
in Spear v. Myers, 6 Barb. 447 ; Wright 
v. Delafield, 23 Id. 520; Bright e. Jud- 
son, 47 Id. 37 ; Francia v. Joseph, 3 Edie. 
182 ; Turner «. Treadvvay, 56 How. Pr. 
28; Lawrence v. Clark, 36 If. Y. 128; 
Clark v. Ely, 2 Sandf. Oh. 17 '1 ; McQuade v. 
Irwin, 39 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 308; Prentiss 
n. Graves, 33 Barb. 624 ; Rosa v. Brother- 
son, 10 Wend. 86. Applied in Trader's Bit. 
v. Bradner, 43 Barb. 392 f Moore «. Ryder, 
65 If. Y. 441 ; Ontario Bk. v. Worthington, 

12 Wend. 600. Commented on in Whites. 
Springfield Bank, 3 Sandf. 226. RcafFd in 
Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93 ; McBride v. 
Farmers' Bk., 26 K Y 454. Disting'd in 
De Zeng v. Fyfe, 1 Bosw. 335. Declared 
settled law, and never to have been de- 
parted from by our courts, in Crandall v. 
Vickery, 45 Barb. 156. Examined in Mc- 
Cuskey v. Sherman, 24 Conn. 611 ; citing, 
Bank of Salina v. Babcock, 21 Wend. 499 ; 
Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville, 24 Id. 115. 
Critiaally considered in Russell v. Hadduck, 
3 Gilm. (111.) 233; s. c, 44 Am. Dec. ,693, 
with note, and in effect said to be super- 
seded by Bank of Salina «. Babcock, 21 
Wend. 499 ; Bank of Sandusky «. Scoville, 
24 Id. 115; and to be denied by Justice 
Story, after reviewing all the cases, in 
Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 ; though again 
reviewed and approved by Chancellor Wal- 
worth, in Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 39 ; 
where he endeavored to prove that Justice 
Story entirely misunderstood all the Eng- 
lish cases, as well as those in 21 and 24 
Wend, supra ; the decision in 3 Gilm. supra ; 
also approving the last-named casesin support 
of what is said to be the most sensible and 
reasonable rule. Criticised and disting'd 
with Rosa v. Brotherson, 10 Wend. . 85, in 
Homes v. Smyth, 16 Me. 177; s. c, 33 Am. 
Dec. 650, with note, as inapplicable to the 
law of Maine, and upon their principles and 
authorities, the N. Y. doctrine as thus laid 
down, in Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 68 ; 
Johnson v. Weed, 9 Id. 309 ; N. Y. S^ato 
Bank v. Fletcher^ 5 Wend. 85, is denied. 
Explained in Railroad Co. ». Nat. Bk., 102 
U. S. 25, as not according with views after- 
wards expressed in 3 Kent Com. 81, n. b. 
Dissented from in Fellows v. Harris, 12 
Smedes & M. (Miss.) 466. Disting'd as to 
transferee of bonds, — in Curtis v. Leavitt, 
15- If. Y. 196; as to mortgagee, in Birdseye 
v. Ray, 4 Hill, 163. Applied to assignee of 
mortgage, — in Hoyt ®. Hoyt, 8 Bosw. 527; 
Hcrtell». Bogert, 9 Paige, 59. Applied to 
transferee of stock, — in Weaver v. Barden, 
49 If. Y. 294. Applied to purchaser of 
mortgaged premises, — in Dickerson v. Til- 
linghast, 4 Paige, 222. Applied -to. trans- 



feree of goods, in Root v. French, 13 Wend. 
573. Followed (Necessity that negotiable 
paper be taken in usual course of trade) in 
Paynes. Cutler, iSWend. 605; Hall v. Wil- 
son, 16 Barb. 553; Wardell ». Howell, 9 
Wend. 173. Applied in Holbrooke. Mix, 1 
B. D. Smith. 1 58. Applied to consignment 
of goods in Williams v. Tilt, 36 N. Y. 325. 
Applied (Compelling accounting for proceeds 
of negotiable paper) in Comstock v. Hier, 
73 If. V. 275 ; Covell v. Tradesman's Bank, 

1 Paige, 134, 

v. Davis, 3 Den. 16. Affd in 1 JV. Y. 

196. See points of counsel in How. App. 
Gas. 387. Decision in 1 If. Y. applied 
(Waiver of demand, by indorser) in Russell 
v. Cronkhite, 32 Barb. 282; Porter ». Kem- 
ball, 53 Id. 470. Disting'd (Demand in- 
cluded in protest, by implication) in Bren- 
nan v. Lowry, 4 Daly, 255. Applied in 
Youngs v. Lee, 12 If. Y. 554; Cook v. Litch- ■ 
field, 5 Sandf. 341 ; Woodbury «. Sackrider, 

2 Abb. Pr. 404. Disting'd with Youngs v. 
Lee in Cook «. Warren, 88 If. Y. 37. -Dis- 
ting'd, arfd Backus v. Shipherd, 11 Wend. 
269, cited, in Sprague n. Fletcher,' 8 Oreg. 
367; s. a, 34 Am. R. 587. 

Codwise v. Field, 9 Johns. 263. Followed 
with Bank of Orange v. Wakeman, 1 Cow. 
46 (Officer not to apply execution to his 
own debt) in Miles v. Richwine, ■ 2 fiawle 
(Pa.) 199; s. c, 19 Am. Dec. 638, with note. 

v. Gelston, 10 Johns. 521. Compared 

with other cases (Application by trustee to 
court for advice, whether by petition or bill) 
in 5 Abb. If. O. 352, n. Quoted in Bur- 
rill on Assign. § 427, n. 1, 4 ed. 

Coe v. Beckwith, 31 Batb: 339; s. c, more 
fully, in 10 Abb. Pr. 296; 19 How. Pr. 398. 
Denied as a rule of pleading in Graham v. 
Machado, 6 Duer, 519; Price v. McOlave, Id. 
548. Discussed (Assignment for benefit of 
creditors — release, subsequent to) in BurriU 
on Assign. § 317, 4 ed. 

v. Beckwith, 10 Abb. Pr. 296; s. c, 

31 Barb. 339. Collated with other cases , 
(Trustees' compromises) in 5 Abb. If. C. 
351, n. 

- v. Dunham, 45 How. Pr. 40; s. c, 

more fully, 3'5 N. Y. Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
412. 

v. Gilbert, 5 Duer, 72 ; s. c, 2 Abb. Pr. 

242. Affd in 17 .V". Y. 489. Decision in 17 
If, Y. followed (Bonds not leviable un- 
til delivered) in Sickles v. Richardson, 23 
Hun, 559, 564. Compare Code Civ. Pro. 
§ 648. Explained (Private corporation— 
suit against) in Ang. & A. on Corp. 401, 
11 ed. 

v. Hunt, C Hill, 595. Followed (Newly 

discovered evidence) in May v. Strauss, 8 
Abb. If. O. 274, 279. 

v. Webb, 4 Sandf. 639. Questioned 

(Service of injunction order as prerequisite 
to bringing party into contempt) in People 
e. Compton, 1 Duer, 512, 553. 

v. Cassidy, 6 Daly-, 242. Affd in 72 ff. 

Y. 133. , - . • ' < 



COE -COLIN. 



165 



V. Coe; 37 Barb. 232; s. c, more full}', 

14 Abb. Pr. 86. 

v. Hobby, 7 Hun, 157. Aff'd in 72 

J*. K.141 ; s. c, 28 Am. R. 120. See Na- 
tional Bank of Fort Edward «. Washington 
Co. Nat. Bank. .Decision in 72 JV. Y. fol- 
lowed, but point not stated, in Nat. B'k 
of Fort Edward v. Washington Co. Nat. 
B'k, 72 JV Y. 606. 

v. Smith, 24 Wend. 341. Approved and 

followed (Construction of Poor law) in Foster 
«. Cronkhite, 35 JV. Y. 139. 
Coffey V. Home life Ins. Co., 44 How. Pr. 
381 ; s. c, more fully, 35 Super. Gt. (J. & 
S.), 314. Decision in 35 Super. Gt. followed 
(Suicide as showing insanity) in Weed v. 
Mutual Benef. L. Ins. Co., Id. 386. 
Coffin v. Coffin, 23 JT. Y. 9. Followed (Exe- 
cution of will) in Nexsen v. Nexsen, 2 Eeyes, 
229. Applied in Bagley v. Blackman, 2 
Lavs. 41 ; Von Hoffman v. Ward, 4 Red/'. 
244, 260. Followed in Darling v. Arthur, 
22 Hun, 84. Compared in Brady v. Mc- 
Crosnan, 5 Red/. 431. Quoted in 1 Jarm. 
on Wills. Band. & T. ed. 208, n. 

y. Coke, 3 Hun, 396 ; s. c, 6 Sup'm. Gt. 

(T. .& O.) 71. Further proceedings in 4 
Hun, 616. Decision in 4 Hun followed 
(Extra allowance on discontinuance) in 
Dambmann v. Schulting, 6 Run, 29. 

v. N; Y. Central B. R. Co., 64 Barb. 

379. Aff'd, it seems, in 56 N. Y. 632, but 
without opinion. 

v. Reynolds, 37 JV Y. 640. See Aikin 

e. Wasson ; Hovey ». Ten Broeck. Disting'd 
(Meaning of terms "laborers, employes," 
&c.) in Gumey v. Atlantic & G. W. li'y Co., 
58 JV. Y. 358, 3C7; Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 
IT. Y. 50, 53. Applied (Power of referee) 
in Schuyler «. Smith, 51 JV. Y. 309, 317. 
Collated, with other cases, in Hoffm. on 
Referees, 4. 
- — - v. Folger. See Fenton v. Folger. 
Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns. Oh. 292 ; s. c, 
11 Am. Dec. 471, with note. Commented 
on (Jurisdiction of chancery over charitable 
bequests) in King v. Woodhull, 3 Edw. 79. 
" Belied on in Williams v. Williams, 8 JV". Y. 
525, 550. Approved with McCartee v. 
Orphan Asylum, 9 Gow. 440, in Burr s. 
Smith, 7 Verm. 241 ; s. c, 28 Am. Dee. 154, 
185, with note. Compared (Bequest to un- 
incorporated society) in 4 im. L. Reg. N. S. 
274. 
Coggill v. American Exchange Bk., IKY. 
113; s. c, 49 Am. Bee. 310 ; with note, col- 
lecting citations thereof. Cited as authority 
(Recovery on bill, &c, made payable to 
fictitious person) in Merchants' L. & T. Co. 
«. Bk. of Metropolis, 7 Daly, 137, 140. 
Discussed (Note — bona fide holder) in 
Bijel. on B. & N. 2 ed. 567. 
Coggins v. Bulwinkle, 1 E. B. Smith, 4.34. 

See Guernsey ». Carver. 
Cogswell v. Cogswell, 2 Edw. 240. Applied 
(Interest of tenants in dividends, &c.) in 
case of extra dividends, in Woodruff's estate, 
1 Tuck. 58. Disting'd in Matter of Pollock, 



3 Red/. 109. Cited as authority in Richard- 
son v. Richardson, 75 Me. 570 ; s. c, 46 
Am. It. 428. 

Coghlau v. Dinsmore, 9 Bosw. 453. Aff'd in 
35 How. Pr. 416. 

Cohen. Matter of. 1 Tuck. 286. Followed 
(Signature at end of attestation clause of 
will) in Williamson v. Williamson, 2 Red/. 
449, 451. 

Cohen v. Dry Dock, &c. R. R. Co., 40 Super.) 
Gt. (J. & S.) 368. Affd in 69 IT. Y. 170. 
See Rounds v. Delaware, Lack. & W. R. R. 
Co. Decision in 44 Super. _ Gt. {J. & S.) 
explained (Liability for acts of servant) in 
Hoffman v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. R. Co., 
Id. 1, 7. Decision in 69 JV. Y. quoted in. 
JUoak's UnderhiWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 32. 
Approved as a well considered case, in 1 
Thomps. on Negl. 200. 

v. Dupont, l'Snndf. 260. See Dyett 

v. Pendleton. Applied (Constructive evic- 
tion) in West Side Sav'gs Bk. v. Newton,. 
8 Baly, 332, 335. Quoted in 2 Story on 
Gontr. 5 eg. § 1221, n. 4. Collated with 
other cases in McAdam on Landl. & T. 2 
ed..§ 212. 

v". Frost, 2 Buer, 335. Disapproved 

(Liability of carrier for loss of baggage) in 
Mudgett i). Bay State Steamboat Co., 1 

' Baly, 151. Questioned in dissenting opin- 
ion of Christiancy, J., in McKee v. Owen, 
15 Mich. 133 (the court being equally, 
divided). See Thomps Carr. of Pass. XXII. 

v. N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 50 JV. Y. 

610; s. {/., 10 Am. R. 522. See Hayner v. 
Am. Popular Life Ins. Co. Disting'd (Non- 
performance of express condition in contract 
of insurance) in Wheeler v. Conn. Mut. 
Life Ins. Co., 82 JV Y. 543, 551. Followed 
(Equitable relief to one whose rights under 
insurance contract are denied) in Mausbach 
v. Metrop. Life Ins. Co., 53 How. Pr. 496. 
Approved with Hayner v. Am. Popular L. 
Ins. Co., 69 JV Y. 435, in Union Central 
Life Ins. Co. v. Pottker, 33 Ohio St. 459 ; 
s. c, 31 Am. R. 555, 558. Disapproved 
(Effect of non-performance of condition in 
policy caused by war) in Tait v. N. T. 
Mutual Life Ins. Co., 1 Flipp. (<7. S.) 292, 
318. To the contrary, N. Y. Life Ins. Co. 
v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24. Followed and 
approved with Sands v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 
50 JV Y. 620, 631, 632, in Mutual Benefit 
Life Ins. Co. v. Atwood's Administratrix, 24 
G-ratt. ( Va.) 497; s. c, 18 Am. R. 652, 658. 
Followed in Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. 
«. Hillyard, 8 Vroom (JV. /.) 444; s. c, 18 
Am. R. 741, 753. 

v. O'Connor, 5 Baly, 28. Aff'd in 50 

JV Y. 613, but without opinion. 

Cohn v. Burtnell, 25 Hun, 118. Reported 
in 1 Civ. Pro. R. 211. 

v. Goldman, 43 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 

436. Rev'd in 76 JV. Y. 284. Decision in 
43 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) applied (Judgment 
on contract of sale, as conclusive against 
vendor) in Sacia v. Decker, 1 Civ. Pro. R. 
47, 51. 



166 



COHN— COLE. 



v. Lippmann, 2 Month. L. Bui. 45. 

Superseded (Sale of infant's real estate) as 
to infant over 14 joining),' — by Code Civ. 
Pro. § 2349. 

Colioes Co. t. Goss, 13 Barb. 137. Dictum 
disapproved (Foreclosure by advertisement — 
passing of title without recording of affida- 
vits) in Howard v. Hatch, 29 Id. 297, 303. 
See Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2400, n. 

Coit v. Beard, 33 Barb. 357; s. c, as Coit v. 
Bland, 12 Abb. Pr. 462; 22 How. Pr. 2. 
Followed (Judgment dismissing complaint) 
in Dexter v. (Jlark, 35 Barb. 271. Disap- 
proved in People «. Smith, 51 Id. 360. 
Compare Code Civ. Pro. § 1209. 

v. Campbell, 20 Bun, 50. AfTd in 82 

N. Y. 509. Decision in 82 N. 7. followed 
(Continuance of action on death of party) in . 
McLachliu v. Brett, 27 Ban, 18. Followed, 
but point not indicated, in Greene v. Mar- 
tine, 84 N. Y. 648. 

v. Commercial Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 385; 

s. a, 5 Am. Dec. 282. Followed (Parol 
evidence of signification of term) in Samp- 
sen v. Gazzam, 6 Port. (Ala.) 123; s. c, 30 
Am. Dec. 578. 582, with note. Collated 
with Astor v. Union Ins. Co.. 7 Cow. 202; 
Hinton v. Locke, 5 Bill, 437; Stroud v. 
Frith, 11 Barb. 300; Fitch v. Carpenter, 42 
Id. 40, and other cases, in 6 Am. R. 678, 
n. Explained in 2 Pars, on Contr. 535, «. e. 

T. Horn, 1 Sand/ Gh. 1 ; s. c, fully re- 
ported in 2 K Y. Leg. Obs. 102. 

T. Houston, 3 Johns. Cos. 243. See 

Hawley v. Foote; Slingerland ■ v. Morse. 
Cited with Slingerland v. Morse, 8 Johns. 
474; Lamb v. Lathrop, 13 Wend. 95; Bement 
v. Smith, 15 Id. 493, and Des Arts v. Leg- 
gett, 16 K Y. 582, in 12 Am. Dec. 700, n., 
as showing it to be the established rule in 
If. Y. that a complete and valid tender dis- 
charges the debt and passes the title in the 
property to the creditor even thoug.. he is 
absent. Overruled (Mutual promises, when 
good as accord and satisfaction) in Tilton v. 
Alcott,' 16 Barb. 598, and cases there cited. 
See Russell v. Lyttle, 6 Wend. 390 ; Hawley 
v. Foote, 19 Id. 516; Brooklyn Bank v. I)e 
Grauw, 23 Id. 342. 

— - v. Millikin, 1 Den. 376. Applied (Suf- 
ficiency of seal) in Gillespie ». Brooks, 2 
Red/. 349, 366. 

y. Planer, 7 Robt. 413; s. c, 4 Abb. Pr. 

N. S. 140. Afl'd in 51 N. Y. 647. 

— - v. Stewart, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 216. Ap- 
proved, but appeal dismissed, in 50 JT. 1". 

' 17. Decision in 12 Abb. Pr. JV. S. disting'd 
(Counter-claim founded on tort) in Bell v. 
Lesbini, 4 Civ. Pro. R. (Browne) 367. 

Colah, Matter of, 3 Daly, 529. Applied 
(Who to be appointed committee of lunatic) 
in Matter of Owens, 5 Daly, 288, 293. 
Compare (Compensation of such committee) 
Code Civ. Pro. § 2338. 

Colburn v. Woodworth, 31 Barb. 381. Fol- 
lowed (Effect of former recovery for install- 
ment due under contract) in Brodar v. Lord, 
40 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.) 205, 207. 



Colden v. Brownell, 1 Johns. 267. Reviewed 
with other cases (Lease and letting on shares) 
in Taylor v. Bradley, 4 Abb. Ct. Ajip. Deo. 
363, 370. 

v. Knickerbacker. See Gelston v. 

Hoyt. 

v. Thurber, 2 Johns. 424. Collated 

with other cases (Highways — dedication) in 
Mills Thomps. on Bighw. 3 ed. 59. 

Cole y. Bell, 48 Barb. 194. Disting'd (Notice 
of appeal) in Avery v. Woodbeck, 62 Barb. 
557, 564. 

v. Cole, 50 Bow. Pr. 59.- Afl'd in 12 

Bun, 373. Decision in 50 Bow. Pr. applied 
(Witness convicted in another State not dis- 
qualified) in U. S. v. Barnabo, 14 Blatehf. C. 
Ct. 74, 78. 

- — v. Goodwin,- 19 Wend. 251; s. c., 32 
Am. Dec. 470. See Clark v. Faxton ; Gibson 
v. Culver; Hollister v. Nowlen; Orange 
County Bank v. Brown; Welles v. N. Y. 
Central K. R. Co. Explained with Hol- 
lister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 247; Gould v. 
Hill, 2 Bill, 623, (Limitation of carrier's 
liability) in Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
Chase, 1 E. D. Smith, 115. Relied on- 
in Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. v. Bal- 
dauf, 16 Pa. St. 67; s. c, 55 Am. Dec. 
481. Referred to as contrary to the cur- 
rent of authority, — in Swindlers. Hilliard, 2 
Rich. (S. C.) L. 303. Referred to as over- 
ruled, — in Welsh v. Pittsburgh, &c. R R. 
Co., 10 Ohio St. 70. Reviewed with Gould 
*. Hill. 2 EiU, 623; Dorr v. N. J. Steam- 
Navigation Co., 4 Sand/. 136 ; Parsons v. 
Monteath, 13 Barb. 353; Moore v. Evans, 14 
Id. 524; Wells v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 
20 Id. 641 ; Perkins o. N. Y. Central R. R. 
Co., 24 K Y. 196; Bissell v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co., 25 Id. 442; Smith v. N. Y. Cen- 
tral R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 132; 24 K Y. 222; 
Poucher v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 49 Id. 
263 ; Cragin v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 51 
Id. 61; Magnin v.' Dinsmore, 56 Id. 168 j 
Steers v. Liverpool, N. Y. & Phila. S. S. 
Co., 57 Id. 1, in Maslin v. Bait. & Ohio K. 
R. Co, 14 W. Va. 180; s. c, 35 Am. R. 
748, as illustrating the development of the 
N. Y. doctrine — which, together with the 
English, is deprecated — English, U. S. and 
State authorities being collated.. Quoted 
in 1 Add. on Contr. 544 ; 1 Add. on 
Torts, § 656. . Cited approvingly with 
other authorities, in 2 Kent Com. 608, ». 6. 
Quoted and explained in 2 Pars, on Contri 
234, n. j ; 238-, n. Collated, with other cases, 
in 2 Red/. Am. Railw. Cos. 86. Included, 
with note, in Id. 110. Commented upon in 
Id. 54. Commented upon in Ang. on (Ian. 
\\ 234, 235, 818, 319, 321, 5 ed. Approved 
(Duty of carrier as to delivery of baggage) 
in Logan v. Pontchartrain 11. R. Ce.. U 
Rob. (La.) 24; s; c, 43 Am. Dec. 199, 201, 
with note. Quoted (Carrier's duty to receive 
goods) in Ang. on Carr. § 125, n. 4,. 5 ed. 

v. Gourlay, 9 Bun, 493. Afl'd in 79 

JT. Y. 527. 

V. Hawes, 2 Johns. Cos. 203; s. c, 1 



COLE. 



167: 



N. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 488, with brief note 
on construing covenants together. 

v. Hughes. 54 N. FV444; s. c, 13 Am. R., 

611. Disting'd (Effect of party-wall agree- 
ment) in Brown v. McKee, 57 N. Y. 684. 
Applied in Scott v. McMillan, 8 Daly, 320, 
327. Followed with Scott v. McMillan, 76 
N. Y. 141, in Ilart v. Lyon, 90 Id. 663. 
Compared in Stewarts. Aldrich, 8 Hun, 241. 
Cited^ with other cases, in Richardson v. 
Tobey, 121 Mass. 457; s. c, 23 Am. R. 283. 
Collated with Coffin v. Tallman, 8 K Y. 465, 
and other cases, in 18 Cent. L. J. 125. Col- 
lated, with other cases, in McAdam on Landl. 
& T., 2 ed. § 86. Explained in Wood on 
. Nuis. 2 ed. § 223. Quoted (Covenants — 
transfer of burden or benefits — distinction 
between) in 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 
285. 

v. Irvine, 6 Hill, 634. See Harrison v. 

Stevens; flyers v. Wheeler. See (Separate 
action by joint tenants, &c. to recover 
real property) Code . Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 1500, n. 

v. Jessnp, 9 Barb. 395. Aff'd in 10 

N. Y. 96. Former decision in 2 Barb. 309. 
Decision in 10 A 7 ". Y. followed (Effect of suc- 
cessive absences under statute of limita- 
tions) in Cutler o. Wright, 22 K Y. 472, 
477. Followed with Bennett «. Cook, 43 
N. Y. 537, under a similar statute, in Whit- 
comb e.' Keator, 59 Wise. 614. Followed in 
Milton v. Babson, 88 Mass. 326. Decision in 
2 Barb, disapproved (Pleading — return that 
will bar statute of limitations) in Ford v. 
Babcock, % Sandf. 518. 

v. Malcolm, 7 Hun, 81. Rev'd in 66 

N. Y. 363. Decision in 66 N. Y. explained 
and applied (Subrogation) in Twombly v. 
Cassidy) 82 JT. Y. 155, 158. Discussed in 
Wait on Fraud. Coiw. § 1 95. 

v. Mann, 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 380. 

AfTd in 62 N~. Y. 1. See Herring «. Hop- 
pock. Decision in 62 N. Y. followed (Ef- 
fect of sale of goods, title not to pass till 
they are paid for) in Fitzgerald v. Fuller, 19 
Run, 180. Explained in Thomas on Mort. 
438. 

v. Niles, 3 Hun, 326 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. 

(T. & C.) 451. Afl'd, it seems, in 62 N. Y. 
636, but without opinion. 
*T. Patterson, 25 Wend. 456. See Jack- 
son v. Topping. Approved (Separate actions 
by heirs for rent) in Jones v. Felch, 3 
Bosw. 63. 

v. Perry, 8 Cow. 214; s. c, 9 If. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 364, with brief note, on 
granting of new trial for excessive damages. 
See Matson v. Buck. 
- — - y. Reynolds, 18 K Y. 74. Followed 
(Suits between firms where a person is mem- 
ber of both) in Kingsland v. Braisted, 2 
Lam. 17. 
v. Sapkett, 1 Hill, 516. Approved (Ef- 
fect of note to satisfy debt) in Elwood v. 
Deifendorf, 5 Barb. 398, 408. Disting'd in 
Neff v. Clute, 12 Id. 471. Applied in 
Farrington v. Frankfort Bank, 24 Id. 502 ; 



Parrott ». Colby, 6 Eun, 58. Followed in 
Bates v. Rosekraus, 23 How. Pr. 98, 107, 
which was aff'd in 37 If. Y. 409, which see ; 
Hill v. Beebe, 13 Id. 562. Disting'd 
(Satisfaction of obligation due from joint 
obligors) in La Farge v. Hcrter, 4 Barb. 352.) 
Disapproved in Waydell v. Luer, 3 Den. 
415, which rev'd 5 Hill, 448, which see. 
Criticised in Livingston v. Radcliff, 6 Barb. 
207. Applied in Vernam v. Crocker, 1 Hun, 
451, 454. 
- — v. Sanlpaug-h, 48 Barb. 105. See De 
Zeng v. Fyfe. Questioned (Pledgee of ac- 
commodation paper as security for pre-exist- 
ing debt, as a bona fide holder) in Bowman 
v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209; s. c, 9 Am. R. 
557. 

v. Savage, 10 Paige, 583. Not followed 

(Right of grantee of mortgaged premises to 
set up usury) in Mechanic's Bank v. Edwards, 
• 1 Barb. 278, which was however denied and 
Cole v. Savage followed in Morris v. Floyd, 
5 Id. 135. Disting'd in Berdan «. Sedg- 
wick, 40 Id. 362. Disapproved in Post 
e. Bank of Utica, 7 Hill, 397, which was 
reaffd in Chamberlain v. Dempsey, 36 N. Y. 
149, and Cole v. Savage disapproved. Ex- 
amined ("Borrower" within meaning of 
usury act) and disapproved as contrary to 
Rexford v. Widger, 2 AT. Y. 131; Schermer- 
horn ». Talman, 14 Id. 93,— in Allerton v. 
Bclden, 49 Id. 377. Compare Leavitt ». 
De Launay, 4 Sandf. Ch. 299. Limited, and 
Allerton v. Belden, 49 If. Y. 375; Post, v. 
Bank of Utica, 7 Hill, 391 ; Rexford v. Wid- 
ger, 2 17. 131; Vilas v. Jenes, 1 Id. 
274; Schermerhorn v. Talman, 14 Id. 93; 
Wheelock v. Lee, 64 Id. 243, reviewed in 
Buckingham v. Corning, 91 Id. 525. 
Cited as authority (Bill to remove usurious 
security) in Williams v. Fitzhugh, 37 Id. 
448. Applied (Waiver of defense of illegal- 
ity of contract) in Merritt v. Millard, 4 
Keyes, 214. >. 

.v. Smith, 4 Johns. 193. Disting'd 

(Proof of right of action, in action on stat- 
ute) in Thorpe 0. Rankin, 4 Harr. (if. J.) 
36; s. c, 38 Am. Dec. 531, with note. 

v. Tyler, 65 A 7 ". Y. 73, 77. Explained 

(Creditor's actions— judgment) in Wait on 
Fraud. Conv. § 170. Quoted and explained 
(Debtor's alienations of property — existing 
creditors— fraud) in Id. § 95. Quoted 
(Fraudulent intent— how judged) in Id. 
§8. 

— v. Van Keuren, 6 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.} 
480 ; mem. of s. c, 4 Hun, 262. Aff'd, it . 
seems, in 64 A 7 ". Y. 646, but without opin- 
ion. Further decision in 51 How. Pr. 451. 

— T. Village of Medina, 27 Barb. 218. 
Reviewed and reaffd (Liability of muni- 
cipal corporation, in respect to sidewalks) 
in Peek v. Village of Batavia, 32 Id. 
634, 646. 

— - v. Wendel, 8 Johns. 116. Cited (Parol 
vidence to explain ambiguous expressions) 
in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 947. 

— T. White, 26 Weiul. 511. See Collins v. 



168' 



COLEGROVE— COLES. 



Brush ;' Srnith «. Acker. Explained (Effect 
of sale, &c. without immediate delivery of 
possession) in Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hillfill. 
Quoted in Wait on Fraud. Conv. § 252, 
n. 4. 

Colegrove v. N. T. & Harlem R. R. Co., 6 
Duer, 382. AfTd in 20 if. Y. 492. See 
Brown v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Button 
«. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; Chapman v. New 
Haven R. R. Co. Decision in 20 H. Y. crit- 
icised (Contributory negligence that ex- 
cuses carrier) as not removing the difficulty 
that may be presented by such cases, — in 
Willis v. Long Island R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 
402, which was afi'd in 34 N. Y. 677, which 
see. Cited with other cases (Effect of con- 
tributory negligence of one in charge of 
conveyance) as conclusively settling the law 
inN. Y.,^in Robinson v. N. Y. Central, &c. 
R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 154. Applied in Arctic 
Fire Ins. Co. ». Austin, 3 Hun, 198, which, 
was rev'd in 69 N. Y. 483, which see; 
Brown «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 32 Id. 
601. Thought in Mooney v. Hudson River 
R. R. Co., 5 Robt. 648; Beck v. East River 
Ferry Co., 6 Id. 87, to be in great measure 
overruled by Brown o. N. Y. Central R. R. 
Co., 5 Id. 549. Applied (Effect of con- 
tributory negligence of third" person) in 
Mott d. Hudson River R. R. Co., 8 Bosw. 
354; Slater v. Mersereau, 64 N. Y. 147. 
Cited as authority in Perry v. Lansing, 17 
Hun, 37. Disting'd in Bronk ». N. Y. & 
New Haven R. R. Co., 5 Daly, 457. Dis- 
ting'd (Joint action against wrong-doers) in 
Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Id. 535. Applied 
in Van Wagenen v. Kemp, 7 Id. 328. 
Disting'd in Chipman ®. Palmer, 9 Id. 519, 
which was affd in 77 N. Y. 51, which see. 
Relied on with Cooper v. Eastern T. Co., 75 
Id. 116, in Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 004. 
Questioned and compared in 4 Am. L. Beg. 
W. S. 25. 

Coleman v. Bean, 14 Abb. Pr. 38. Affd ia 
3 Reyes, 94; s. a, more fully, 32 How. Pr. 
370 ; 1 Abb. Ot. App. Bee. 394. Decision 
in 32 Bow. Pr. applied (Consideration to 
support undertaking given on discharge of 
attachment) in Bildersee v. Aden, 12 Abb. 
Pr. AT. S. 327. Applied (Presumption as 
to validity of such undertaking) in Onder- 
donk v. Voorhis, 36 K Y. 361. Applied 
(Sureties estopped by recitals in undertak- 
ing) to undertaking in replevin, in Harrison 
v. Wilkin, 69 Id. 418. 

v. Crump, 40 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 548. 

Affd as Colman v. Same,, in 70 N. Y. 573. 
Decision in 70 N. Y. followed (Use of trade- 
mark to be restrained, notwithstanding ab- 
sence of proof of guilty intent) in American 
Grocer ». Grocer Pub. Co., 25 Bun, 398,402. 

v. Eyre, 1 Sweeny, 476. Rev'd (Validity 

of parol agreement to share profits and losses 
of adventure) in 45 N. Y. 38. 

v. First Nat. Bk. of Elinira, 53 N. Y. 

390. Approved (Right to rescind contract 
for deposit in bank, — for fraud on part of 
bank) in Rich v. Niagara Sav'gs Bk., 3 Bun, 



484. Followed (Parol evidence that loan 
was made to bank and not to its officer; in 
Pierson v. Atlantic Nat, Bk., 77 IT. Y. 310. 
Applied (Estoppel of bank to deny its lia- 
bility on certificate of deposit) in West v. 
First Nat. Bk., 20 Hun, 411. Explained at 
length (Liability of principal not named in 
written contract) in Merchant's Bank v. 
Hayes, 7 Id. 533. Cited as authority jn 
Briggs v. Partridge, 64 XT. Y. 3R2. Cited 
with Barry v. Ransom, 12 Id. 404, in -2 
Whart. Com. on Bv. § 950, n. Cited {Parol 
evidence to explain contract with agent) in 
Id. § 225, n. Cited (Election to proceed 
against agent, instead of principal) in Id. 
§ 472. 

— - v. Garrigues,. 18 Barb. 60. Examined 
and explained (Agency for the sale of laud) 
in Pringle v. Spaulding, 53 Id. 17. Quoted 
and explained in 3 Pars, on Contr. 11, n. q. 

v. Lansing, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (7 1 . & O.) 8; 

s. c, more fully, 65 Barb. 54. 

v. Livingston, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 

32. Affd, it seems, in 56 iv". Y. 658, but 
without opinion. Another decision denying 
reargument, in 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 231 ; 
s. c, 45 How. Pr. 483. Decision in 36 
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) disting'd (Negligence of 
warehouseman as question for a jury) in 
Madan v. Covert, 42 Id. 135, 139. 

v. People, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) add. 3. 

Rev'd in 55 N. Y. 81. Further decisions in 
1 Hun, 596; s. c, 4 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
61, which were affd in 58 N. Y. 555. Sea 
People v. Corbin. Decision in 55 N. Y. ap- 
plied (Evidence of other offenses than that 
charged) in People -v. Corbin, 56 Id. 365. 
Disting'd in Coppennan v. People, 56 Id. 
594 ; Levy v. People, 80 Id. 327, 331 ; 
People 7). Gibbs, 93 Id. 470. Decisions 
in 55 Id. and 58 Id. with Copperman v. 
People examined aud reconciled (Proof pi 
scienter on part of one receiving stolen 
goods) in State v. Ward, 49 Conn. 429; 
s. c, 15 Reporter, 748. Explained (Evidence 
establishing scienter) in 2 Add. on Torts, 
630, n., Wood's ed. Explained (Derivative 
evidence) in 2 Best on Bv. § 495, n. a, 
Wood's ed. 

v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 48 Barb. 371. 

Affd in 38 N. Y. 201. 

v. Wise, 2 Johns. 165. See to the con- 
trary (Competency of person whose name 
appears on negotiable paper, as witness to 
impeach its validity) in Stafford v. Rice, 5 
Cow. 23. 

Coles v. Bowne, 10 Paige, 534. See Trevor 
v. Wood ; Wiswall v. Hall. Explained (Re- 
formation of Contract for mistake) in Bryce 
v. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., 55 K Y. 240, 245. 

v. Coles, 15 Johns. 159; s. c, 8 Am. Dec. 

231, witty note. Opposed (Rules applica- 
ble to partnership real estate) in Edgar 0. 
Donally, 2 Mumf. 387. Denied in Sigourney 
v. Munn, 7 Conn. 18. Approved in Thayer e. 
Lane, Walk Ch. (Mich.) 203. Criticised and 
qualified in Divine ®. Mitchum^ 4 B. Monr. 
(Ky.) 488 ; s. c, 41 Am. Dec. 241, with note, 



COLES— COLLINS. 



169 



as at variance with other decisions. Re- 
viewed, with other cases, in McDermott «. 
Lawrence, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 438; s. c, 10 
Am. Dee. 468. Cited in Story on Partn. 
7 ed., § 94, n., as not supporting the rule 
laid down in the text. Included in 1 Hare 
& W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 592. 

t. Marquand. See Martin ». Black. 

Colgrove v. Tallman, 5 Bun, 103. Aff'd in 
67 N. Y. 95; s. c, 23 Am. R. 90. Previous 
decision in 2 Lam. 97. See Pain v. Packard, 
Decision in 67 N. Y. explained (Complaint 
in action against surety) in Luce ■«. Alex- 
ander, 49 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 202. Dis- 
ting'd (Change of relation of debtor to 
creditors from legal to equitable) in Hunger 
e. Albany City Nat. B'k, 85 N. Y. 580, 
591. Followed (Duty of creditor to pro- 
ceed against principal debtor at request of 
surety) in Russell «. Weinberg, 4 Abb. N. O. 
139, 143. Explained in Marsh v. Duockel, 
25 Hun, 167, 169. Cited (Discharge of 
retiring partner s liability for debts of firm) 
in Story on Partn. 7 ed. § 158, n. ; Briggs 
v. Briggs, 15 N. Y. 471, being cited in § 
159, n., on a like point. Quoted aud dis- 
cussed in 2 Colly er ' in Partn. § 553, n. 2, 
Wood's Am. ed. Decision in 2 Lans. dis- 
ting'd (Discharge of withdrawing partner by 
dealings with continuing partner) in Vernam 
«. Harris, 1 Hun, 451, 453. 
Collender v. Dinsinore. 55 N Y. 200 ; s. c, 
14 Am. R. 224; rev'g 64 Barb. 457. See 
Reynolds v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co. Com- 
pare decision in 55 If. Y. (Meaning of " C. 
0. D.") with American Express Co. v. Schier, 
55 III. 140. Criticised (Parol evidence 
to explain written contract for carriage of 
goods) in Lawspn's Oontr. of C'arr. § 113'. 

Colie v. Jamison, 13 Nat. Banlcr. Reg. 4, 
' n. Aff'd in 4 Hun, 284; s. c.,,6 SujSm. Ct. 
\T. & C.) 576; 13 Nat. Banhr. Reg. 1. 

V. O'Keel, 3 Alb. L.J. 13. Followed 

(Expiration of lien) in Dart v. Fitch, 23 
Hun, 361, 366. 

Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. 471. See Lock- 
wood e. Barnes. Followed (Recovery of 
money paid under contract void by statute 
of frauds) in Galvin v. Prentice, 45 N. Y. 
162; Galway v. Shields, 66 Mo. 313; s. c, 
27.4m. R. 351, 353. 

v. Idley, 1 Bradf. 94. Disting'd (De- 
positions taken on probate of will, how 
affected by subsequent filing of objections) 
in Downey v. Downey, 16 Hun, 481. 

v. Munn, 41 N. Y. 143. Aff'g 1 Tuch 

136. Decision in 41 N. Y. approved (Com- 
pensation of executor) and applied to 
guardian, in Morgan v. Hannas, 13 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. 361, 368. 

v. Whipple, 13 Wend. 225. Relied on 

(Setting aside judicial sale) in Kellogg v. 
Howell, 62 Barb. 280. Approved in King 
v. Piatt, 37 N. Y. 160. 

Colligan v. Scott, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
574. ' AfPd, it seems, in 58 N. Y. 670. 

Collin v Collin, 1 Barb. Ch. 630; s. c, 45 
Am. Dee. 420, with note, collecting cita- 



tions thereof on the'points decided respect- 
ing construction of wills and legacies. 
Collins v. Albany & Schenectady R. R. Co., 
1 1 Barb. 492. See Hegeman v. Western R. 
R. Co. Disting'd (Contributory negligence 
in railroad passenger) in Southwestern R. 
R. Co. ii. Paulk, 24 Ga. 365. Criticised as 
inconclusive (Allowing damages for accident 
larger than allowed for death) in 2 Sedgw. 
on Dama. 7 ed. 659, n. 

^— v. Allen, 12 Wend. 356; s. c, 27 Am. 
Dee. 130, with note, containing citations re- 
specting set-off. 

v. Brush, 9 Wend. 198. Followed with 

Doane v. Eddy, 16 Id. 523; Randall v. 
Cook, 17 Id. 56 (Retention of possession by 
vendor as evidence of intent to defraud) in 
Randall v. Parker, 3 Sandf. 332, as not 
overruled by Smith v. Acker, 23 Wend. 
653; Cole v. White, 26 Id. 511 ; Hanford v. 
Artcher, 4 Hill, 271. 

v. Burns, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 518. 

Aff'd in 63 N Y. 1. 

v. Butts, 10 Wend. 399. Aff'd in 13 

Id. 139. 

v. Campfleld, 9 How. Pr. 519. Ap- 
proved (Sufficiency of substituted service), 
in Jones v. Derby, 1 Abb. Pr. 458. Dis- 
ting'd (Affidavit to obtain substituted ser- 
vice) in Simpson v. Burch, 4 Sun, 315, 
317. 

v. Collins. 10 Hun, 272. Rev'd in 71 

N. Y. 269. Further decision in 80 Id. 1. 
Another proceeding in 17 Hun, 598, aff'd in 
80 N. Y. 24. Decision in 71 Id. dis- 
ting'd (Right to alimony) in Kennedy v. 
Kennedy, 73 Id. 369, 372. Decision in 80 
Id. followed in Maxwell v. Maxwell, 28 
Hun, 566. 

v. Drew, 6 Daly, 234; s. c, 50 How. Pr. 

477. Aff d in 67 N. Y. 149. 

■ v. Hasbrouck, 1 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.)36. 

Rev'd in 56 N. Y. 157 ; s. c, 15 Am. R. 407. 
See Woodhull v. Rosenthal. Decision in 56 
N. Y. examined and approved (Sublease 
arid assignment) in Ganson v. Tifft, 71 Id. 
48, 54. Authorities reviewed in 16 Am. L. 
Rev. 31. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 3 Hun. 680. 

Followed (Recovery for services as clerk of 
board of aldermen) in Oakly v. Mayor, &c. 
of N. Y., 4 Hun. 72. Disting'd as inapplic- 
able to messenger, in Smith «. Mayor &c. of 
N. Y., 4 Id. 644. 

v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 

499, 503. Aff'd, it seems, in 71 N. Y. 609, 
but without opinion. 

v. Ralli, 20 Hun, 246. Aff d on opinion 

below, in 85 N Y. 637. Decision ia 20 Hun 
followed and Zink v. People, 77 N Y. 114 
disting'd (Righ,ts of one claiming under one 
who has acquired possession by larceny) in 
Hentz v. Miller, 94 Id. 64. 

v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278. See Hitchcock 

v. Harrington ; Jackson v. Dewitt ; Jackson 
v. Willard ; Jackson ■». Wood; Raynor 
v. Wilson. Disapproved with Coates v. 
Cheever, 1 Cow. 460, 475 (Dower in mort- 



izd 



OOLLMAN— COMINS. 



fged premises) in Van Dyne v. Thayre, 19 
end. 172. Collated with other cases, in 
Sharsw. & B. 'Oat.' on Real Prop. 342. 

ColLmaii t. Collins. See Van Buskirk v. 
Purinton. 

Collomb t. Caldwell, 16 K Y. 484. Further 
decision, as Collomb v. Read, 24 K Y. 505. 
Decision in 16 N. Y. quoted (Assignment 
for benefit of creditors — trusts in assignor's 
favor) in Burrill on Assign.' § 200, n. 5, 
4 ed. Explained in Id. § 207, n. 4. Dis- 
cussed in Id. § 211. 

T. Bead. See Collomb v. Caldwell. 

Colmnn v. Shattuck, 2 Hun, 497; s. c, 5 
Sup'm. Ct. (T.&O.) 34. Aff'd in 02 N. Y. 
348. Decision, in 62 K Y. disting'd (Excess 
of or reduction from assessment, when to 
be disregarded on appeal) in Matter of 
Deering, 93 Id. 361. 

Colson v. Arnot, 57 N. Y. 253. Disting'd 
(Negotiable instrument as subject of sale) 
in Sweet v. Chapman, 7 Hun, 576, 579. 

Colt T. Heard, 10 Hun, 189. Compared with 
other cases (Lif e donee's absolute power of 
disposition) in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 8 Abb. 
N. O. 413, 418. 

v. Lasnier, 9 Cow. 320. Followed and 

approved (Liability of one receiving assets 
from executor) in Prosser v. Leatherman, 4 
How. (Miss.) 237; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 121. 

v. McMeclieu, 6 Johns. 160; s. c, 5 Am. 

Dee, 200; s. c, 4 if! Y. Com. L. Law. ed.&b; 
with brief note, treating it as of doubtful 
authority. Approved (Extent of common 
carrier's liability) in Fitch v. Newberry, 1 
Doug. (Mich.) 7. Cited as authority with 
Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. 107; Elliott 
v. Rossell, 10- Id. 1, in Malpica v. McKown, 
1 La. 248 ; s. c, 20 Am. Dec. 279, 283. 
Criticised (Act of God) in Lawson's Oontr. 
of Carr. % 5. Discussed in Aug.. on Carr. 
§ 155, 5 ed. Quoted and explained in 2 
Pars, on Oontr. 160, n. I. Condemned in 
1 Smith Lead. Cos. pt. 1, 417. 

v. People, 1 Parh. Or. 011. Previous 

proceedings in People s. Colt, 3 Hill, 432. 

— — y. Sixth Ave. K. K. Co., 33 Super. Ot. 
(J. & S.) 189. Aff'd in 49 ST. Y. 071, but 
without opinion. Decision in 33 Super. Ot: 
(J. & S.) collated with other cases (Con- 
tributory negligence of disabled, &e. person; 
in 6 Abb. 'N. O. 116, n. 

Colton v. Beardsley, 38 K Y. 29. Reviewed 
at leDgth and disting'd (Estoppel to assert 
title to office) in Turnipseed v. Hudson, 50 
Miss. 429 ; s. c, 19 Am. R. 15, 20; Bigel. 
on Estoppel, 522, being thought to convey an 
erroneous impression of the ease. 

v. Fox, 6 Hun, 49. Aff'd in 67 ST.- Y. 

348. See Manice v. Manice. Decision in 
67 K Y. and Magill ». McMillan, 23 Hun, 
193, disting'd (Provision by will, when vest- 

■ ing at testator's death) in Stuart v. Spalding, 
30 Id. 21. 

v. Ross, 2 Paige, 396. See Betts v. 

Jackson; Lloyd v. Brewster. Commented 
upon (Wills —probate conclusive as to per- 
sonalty) in Willard on Executors, 60. 



Columbia Ins. Co. v. Force, 8 How. Pr. 
353. Followed (Waiver of objection to 
legality of arrest) in preference to Stcttdrt v. 
Howard, 15 Barb. 26, in Farmer v. Rob- 
bins, 47 How. Pr. 415. 

v. Stevens, 37 K Y. 536. Disting'd 

(Costs against receiver of insurance com- 
• paiiy) in Matter of. Booth, 11 Abb. N. G. 
145. ' Quoted in High on Beceiv. § 339, n. 3; 
Id. § 810, n. 1. 

Columbia Turnpike v. Haywood, 10 Wend. 
425. See Fairbanks v. Wood ; Noyes t>. 
Hewitt. 

Colvin v. Colvin, 2 Paige, 385. Limited (Re- 
marriage of divorced parties) in Moore ■v. 
Hegoman, 92 N. Y. 521, 528. Followed in 
Moore t. Moore, 8 Abb. N. O. 171, 173. 
Explained and limited in Rush e. Rush, 40 
Iowa, 648; s. c, 26 Am. B. 179. Explained 
(Reversal of decree of divorce on mutual 
request) in 2 Bish. on Mar. & D. § 752, 
6ed. 

y. Corwin, 15 Wend. 557. See Guernsey 

v. Carver. Disapproved (Cause, of action, 
when entire) in Secor v. Sturgis, 16 If. Y. 
548. Questioned in Perry v. Dickerson, 85 
Id. 345, 348. 

v. Currier, 22 Barb. 371. Disapproved 

(Lien for work done on separate estate of 
- married woman) in Ainsley «. Mead, 3 Lans. 
116. See (Curtesy as affected by statute) 
Matter of Winne, 1 Id. 508/521. Collated 
with other c;ises in Sharsw. & B. Cos. on 
Real Prop. 289. 

v. Holbrook, 3 Barb. 475. Aff'd in 2 

JV. Y, 126. 

v. Lawrence, 24 How. Pr. 324; s. c, 

more fully, 38 Barb. 643. Aff'd in 38 N. Y. 
71 ; s. c, 36 How. Pr. 306. See Bagley «. 
Peddie. 

Coman v. Lakcy, 80 If. Y. 345. Disting'd 
(Lien of vendor of personal property as 
■ against bona fide purchaser) in Walker D.- 
Mitchell, 25 Hun, 627. 

y. Storm, 26 How. Pr. 84. Followed 

(Imprisonment for debt — .on the limits) in; 
Matter of Moore, 1 Am. Insolv. B. 95. 
Confirmed in Code Civ. Pro. § 2200. 

Comer v. Cunningham, 77 N. Y. 391. Fol- 
lowed (Conditional sales of personal prop- 
erty) in Hintermister v. Lane, 27 Hun, 497. 
Explained in Walker v. Mitchell, 25 Id.- 
527. Quoted and explained in 1 Benj. on 
Sales,_ § 358, et seq. (Corbin's 4 Am. ed.). 
Criticised as against the weight of authority, 
in 15 Am. L. Rev. 381. 

Comfort y. Fulton, 39 Barb. 56; s. c, more 
fully, 13 Abb. Pr. 276. Questioned and 
explained (Liability for false imprisonment) 
in Von Latham v. Rowan, 17 Abb. Pr. 237. 

y. Eiersted, 26 Barb. 472. Approved 

(Passing of title to articles to be manufac- 
tured) in Hyde <e. Lathrop, 3 Eeyes, 597. 

Comins v. Hetfleld, 12 Hun, 375. Aff'd ia 
80iV.F. 261. 

v. Supervisors of Jefferson, 3 Sup'm. 

Ot. (T. & C.) 296. Aff'd in 64 If. ¥. 626, 
mem. of opinion^ See Cumines «j Same. 



COMMERCIAL UK.— COMMERCIAL BK. OF LAKE ERIE. 171 



Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ot. (T: & C.) followed 
(Biisis of extra allowance) in Riley v. Hul- 
bort, 13 Weekly Dig. 101. Decision in 04 
N. Y. applied in Williams v. Western Union 
Tel. Co., 61 How. Pr. 305, 307. 

Commercial Bank v. City of Rochester, 41 
Barb. 341. Said in 41 N. Y. 619 to have been 
aff d in Ct. of App , Sept. 1869. 

v. White, 1 Code R. 67; s. c, 3 How.Pr. 

292. To the contrary (Alternative judg- 
ment in action to recover personal property) 
see Seaman fl. Luce, 23 Barb. 240. 

Commercial Bank of Albany v Canal Com- 
missioners, 10 Wend. 25. Followed (Tak- 
ing advantage of defect in substance, after 
return to alternative mandamus) in People 
v. Supervisors of Fulton, 14 Barb. 54; 
People v. Ransom, 2 N. Y. 492; People v. 
Supervisors of Westchester, 15 Barb. 613. 
Followed and approved in People ex rel. 
Dunkirk, &c. R. R. Co. v. Batchellor, 53 
N. Y. 138. Approved (Nature of proceed- 
ings on alternative mandamus), as sustained 
by all the authorities, — in People v. Oven, 
shire, 41 How. Pr. 166. Followed (Facts 
to be set forth therein) in People v. Mayor 
of N. Y., 7 Id. 81. Explained (Writ of 
mandamus as showing prima facie title to 
relief) in People v. Judges of Oneida C. P., 

21 Wend. 22. Cited with People v. Ransom, 
2 If. Y. 490 (Alternative mandamus — when 
fatally defective) in Trustees v. People, 12 
111. 248; s. c, 52 Am. Iific. 489. 

v. Hughes, 17 Wend. 94. Disting'd 

(Presumption of damage from failure to pre- 
sent bill for payment) in Syracuse, Bing- 
hamton, &c. R. R. Co. v. Collins, 3 
Lam. 32. Examined with other cases (Ne- 
cessity of presentment) i n Harker n. Ander- 
son, 21 Wend. 375. Disting'd (Effect of 
delivery of money to work change of owner- 
ship) in Graves v. Dudley, 20 N. Y. 80. 

■ Cited with Chapman «. White, 6 Id. 412 ; 
jEtna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 46 

■ Id. 82, in Davis v. Smith, 29 Minn. 202. 
Cited as authority (Assumpsit for neglect of 
corporate duty) in People v. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y., 25 Wend. 685. Disting'd (Effect 
of transfer delivered in blank) in Chauncey 
». Arnold, 24 N. Y. 334. 

- — - v. Ten Eyek, 50 Barb. 9. AfTd in 48 

If. Y. 305. 
Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Kortritrht. 

22 Wend. 348; s. c, 14 If. Y. Com. L. Law. 
ed. 159, with brief note, and (at p. 167) 
analytic list of cases citing this case; 
s. c, 34 Am. Dec. 317, with note, wherein 
it is said to have been frequently cited as 
authority. Affg 20 Wend. 91. See Bush «. 
Lathrop. Decision in 22 Wend, disting'd 
(Possession of certificates of stock' as evi- 
dence of title) in Dunn «. Commercial B'k 
of Buffalo, 11 Barb. 585; Driscoll «. West, 
Bradley & C. M. Co., 59 N. Y. 108. Fol- 
lowed in Leavitt v. Fishor, 4 Duer, 20. 
Explained and applied in Mechanics' B'k v. 
N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., 13 If. Y. 624 ; 



N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co. «. Schuyler, 
84 Id. 83. Rc-affd in McNeil «. Tenth 
Nat B'k, 46 Id. 331 ; Holbrook v. N. 
J. Zinc Co., 57 Id. 623. Approved and 
applied in Comeau v. Guild Fatjn Oil Co., 
3 Daly, 220., Relied on in dissenting 
opinion of Allen, J., in Leggett v. B'k of 
Sing Sing, 24 If. Y. 293. Conflicting cases 
in various States cited in 10 Am. L. 
Bee 276. Cited (Damages for refusal to 
permit transfer of stock) as having been 
much questioned, — in Van Allen v. Illinois 
Central R. R. Co., 7 Bom. 538. Explained 
(Demand for leave to transfer stock) in Pur- 
chase v. N. Y. Exchange B'k, 3 Bolt. 171. 
Relied on in dissenting opinion of Monell, 
J., in Mechanics' B'k'g Assoc, v. Mariposa 
Co., Id. 404. Applied (Right of transferee 
of non-negotiable chose in action) in Moore 
v. Metropolitan Nat. B'k, 55 If. Y. 46. 
Cited as authority (Right of transferee of 
stock certificate) in Delafield v. State of 
Illinois, 26 Wend. 219. Applied (Measure 
of damages) to case of conversion, in Wilson 
v. Matthews, 24 Barb. 296. Applied (Dam- 
ages for conversion of stock) in Romaine v. 
Van Allen, 26 If. Y. 212. Disting'd in 
Baker v. Drake, 53 Id. 222. Applied 
(Measure of damages for value of stock) in 
Wilson v. Little, 1 Sandf. 360. Applied 
(Limit of damages) in Clark v. Miller, 54 
iv". Y. 535. Applied (Action to compel trans- 
fer of stock) in Cushman v. Thayer Man'f'g 
Jewelry Co., 7 Daly, 332, which aff d 53 
How. Pr. 61, which see, and which was 
aff d in 76 If. Y. 368, which see ; People ex 
rel. Jenkins v. Parker Vein Coal Co., 1 
Abb. Pr. 129. Cited as. settled law, in dis- 
senting opinion of Allen, J., in Bank of 
•Attica v. Man'f'rs & Traders' B'k, 20 If. Y. 
507. Discussed in Morawetz on Corp. § 338. 

■ v. Sparrow. See Thomas v. Dakin. 

v. Warren, 15 If. Y. 577. Disting'd 

(Ratification of void act of agent) as inap- 
plicable to case of forgery, in Workman v. 
Wright, 33 Ohio St. 405 ; s. c, 31 Am. B. 
546, with note, collating cases. Cited as 
authority in Hefner v. Vandolah, 62 III. 
483; s. c, 14 Am. R. 106, 108, with note, 
collating cases. See Ringsley v. Vernon, 4 
Sand/. 361, cited on a similar point in 
Hefner v. Dawson, 63 III. 403; s. v., li,Am. 
R. 123. Cited (Effect of promise of partner 
to pay obligation created by another partner 
for his private benefit) in Story on Partn. 
7 ed. § 133, n. 

Commercial Bank of Clyde t. Marine Bank. 
See McBride «. Farmers' B'k of Salem. 

Commercial Bank of Ky. t. Varnum, 3 
Laos. 86. Rev'd in 49 If. Y. 269; s. c, 11 
Am. L. Reg. If. S. 407, with note. Further 
decision in 7 Hun, 236. See Gawtry «. 
Doan ; Walls v. Bailey. 

Commercial Bank of Lake Erie v. Norton, 
1 Hill, 501. Disting'd and criticised (Proof 
of wart of consideration for acceptance of 
bill) in Anthony v. Harrison, 14 Hun, 1 98, 



172 



COMMERCIAL BANK OF OSWEGO^COMSTOCK. 



211. Applied (Delegation of power by 
agent) in Edwards v. City of Watertown, 24 
/d. 426, 428. 

Commercial Bank of Oswego v. Ives. See 
Cornell v. Moulton. 

Commercial Bank of Pennsylvania v. Union 
Bank of N. ¥., 19 Barb. 391. AfE'd in 11 
K 7. 203. See Allen v. Merchants' Bank. 
Decision in 11 K. Y. cited as authority 
(Setting aside deposition) in Butler v. Flan- 
ders, 44 Super. Gt. {J. & S.) 531, 533. 
Disting'd (Liability of collecting agent of 
bank) in Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 N. Y. 
38,46. Cited with other cases and not, fol- 
lowed in Guelick v. Nat. State Bank of 
Burlington, 56 Iowa, 436. Cited as estab- 
lishing the doctrine, in Exchange Nat. Bk. 
v. Third Nat. Bk., 112 U. S. 276, 282. 

Commercial Warehouse Co. v. Graber, 2 
Sweeny, 638. Aff'd in 45 N. Y. 393. 

Commissioners of Almshouse of Kingston 
v. Osterhoudt, 23 Hun, 66. Motion to go 
to Ct. of App. denied in 24 Id. 140. 

Commissioners of Bushwick v. Meserole, 10 
Wend. 122. Criticised and disting'd with 
Commissioners of Carmel v. Judges of Put- 
nam, 7 Id. 264 (Statement of ground of ap- 
peal in highway cases) in Rector v. Clark, 
12 Hun, 189, which was rev'd in 78 jV. Y. 
which see. 

Commissioners of Canal Fund v. Kempshall, 
26 Wend. 404. See Child v. Starr; Hooker 
v. Cummings. Explained (Rights in land 
bounded on navigable stream) in People v. 
Canal Appraisers, 33 If. Y. 461, 500 as not 
infringing upon the doctrine of People v. 
Tibbetts, 19 Id. 523. Collated with other 
cases, in Mills Thomps. on Highw. 3 ed. 
49. 

Commissioners of Carmel v. Judges of 
Putnam, 7 Wend. 264. See Commissioners 
of Bushwick v. Meserole. . 

Commissioners of Central Park, Matter of, 
63 Barb. 282. Appeal dismissed in 50 ST. Y. 
493. Statement in latter that the case below 
is reported in 41 How. Pr. 12 and 4 Lans. 
469, is incorrect, for the former is a different 
case, and the latter set aside a, report of 
commissioners and appointed new ones, 
whose report was confirmed on appeal in 
63 Barb. 262, from which the appeal in 50 
N. Y. 493 was taken. Decision in 41 How. 
Pr. also reported as Morningside Park Case, 
10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 338. Decision in 50 K Y. 
followed (Implied repeal of local statutes) 
in Bartels «. Cunningham, 8 Abb. N. O. 
226. Disting'd (Appeal from order con- 
firming report of commissioners in highway 
proceedings) in Matter of Kingsbridge Road, 
4 Hun, 599, 605. 

. v. , 35 How. Pr. 255; s. c, 51 Barb. 

277. Limited (Authority of Central Park 
commissioners) in Astor v. Mayor, &c. of N. 

. Y., 62 K Y. 574. 

Commissioners of Excise v. Purdy, 22 How. 
Pr. 312. Rev'd in 18 Abb. Pr. 434; s. c, 

. less fully, 22 How. Pr. 506 ; 36 Barb. 266. 
Cited as authority (Action in name of public 



commissioners, when not maintainable) in 
Hess v. Appell, 62 How. Pr. 314. 

Commissioners of Excise of Tompkins v. 
Taylor. See Nevin v. Ladue. 

Commissioners of Excise of Wayne v. Kel- 
ler, 20 How. Pr. 280. See Hasbrouck o. 
Weaver. Approved (Liability of husband 
for wife's act) in Commissioners of Excise of 
Orange v. Dougherty, 55 Barb. 332. 

Commissioners of Excise of Yonkers v. 
Glen no n, 21 Hun, 245.. Followed (Who 
has right of action for violation of excise 
law) in Comm'rs of Kingston v. Osterhoudt, •, 
23 Hun, .66, 68. 

Commissioners of Kinderhook v. Claw, 15 
Johns. 537. Followed (Invalidity of judg- 
ment without notice) in Flint River Steam- 
boat Co. v. Roberts, 2 Fla. 102 ; s. c, 48 
Am. Dec. 178, 181, with note. 

Commissioners of Pilots v. Erie R. R. Co., 
5 Eobt. 366. Said in il N. Y. 61 9 to have 
been affd in Ct. of App., March, 1869. - 

v. Spofford, 3 Hun, 57 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. 

Gt. (T. & G.) 353; Rev'g 47 How. Pr. 479. 
Reargument denied in 4 Hun, 74. Former 
proceedings in 3 Id. 52 ; s. c, 5 Sup'm. 
Gt. (T. & G.) 357. Former decision as 
Sturgis «. SpoSord, 58 N. Y. 103. Decision 
in 3 Hun, 52, explained (Silence as to costs) 
in Lotti v. Krakauer, 1 Cm Pro. R. 312, 
315, n. 

v. Vanderbilt, 2 Robt. 367. Affd in 31 

$T. Y. 265. 

Commissioners of Warwick v. Judges of 
Orange, 13 Wend. 433.. Approved- (Disre- 
garding irregularities in highway proceed- 
ings) in dissenting opinion in People ex rel. 
Odle v. Kniskern, 54 N. Y. 52, 61. Fol- 
lowed with People v. Van Alstyne. 3 Keyes, 
37, in People ex rel. Lasher v. McNeil, 2 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & G.) 140. Quoted and 

' collated with other cases, in Mills Thomps. 
on Highw. 3 ed. 297. 

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Bassford, 6 
Hill, 526. Disting'd (Contract as governed 
by law of place of performance) in Dickin- 
son «. Edwards, 77 if. Y. 573, 583. Disap- 
proved with Thatcher v. Morris, 11 Id. 
437 (Comity as requiring enforcement of 
foreign contracts) in Flagg v. Baldwin, 38 
N. J. Eg. (11 Stew.) 219; s. c, 48 Am. R 
308. 

Compton v. Jones, 4 Gow. 13. Commented 
upon (Contracts — change of parties by nova- 
tion) in 1 Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 483, n. 1. 
Included in 2 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Gas. 5 
ed. 145. 

Comstock's Case, 16 Abb. Pr. 233; s. c, as 
Bylandt v. Comstock, 25 How. Pr. 429. 
Overruled in. effect (Discharge of imprisoned 
debtor) by Coman v. Storm, 26 Id. 84. See 
Gode Civ. Pro. 1881, § 2200, n. 

Comstock v. Ames, 3 Keyes, 357. Followed 
(Finding by referee, when not to be pre- 
sumed) in Meyer v. Amidon, 45 N. Y. 
169. 

v. Carr, 6 Wend. 526. Followed (Inva- 
lidity of appearance by infant defendant 



COMSTOCK— CONE. 



173 



without guardian) in McMurray -o. McMur- 
ray, GO Barb. 117. 

v. Coiustock. See Claflin d. Farmers' & 

Citizens' Bank. 

t. Dodge. See People exrel. Hubbard 

v. Annis. 

v. Drohan, 8 LTun, 373. Affd in 71 

If. Y. P. See Haraill t: Gillespie; Pattison 
V. Powers. Decision in 8 Hun applied 
(Effect of 2 R. S. 101, § 153, on liability of 
one that is surety for payment of mortgage 
debt) in Weeds. Calkins, 24 Id. 582, 586. 

v. Hier, 73 If. Y. 269. Disting'd 

(Assignees of negotiable paper, within 
meaning of Code Pro. § 399 [Code Civ. 
Pro. § 8291) in Kaubitschek v. Blank, 80 
Id. 478, 483. Disting'd (Right of action 
on note, as affected by proof of illegal trans- 
action) in Solinger v. Earle, 45 Super. Gt. 
(J. & S.) 604. Disting'd (Action for con- 
version of negotiable paper) in Southwick 
v. First Nat. Bk. of Memphis, 84 Id. 420, 
433. Explained in Moak's UnderhilV a Torts, 
1 Am. ed. 573. 

v. Johnson, 46 If. Y. 615. See Garwood 

v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. ; Parsons v. 
Johnson. Disting'd (What passes as inci- 
dent to grant) in Parsons v. Johnson, 68 N. 
Y. 69 ; Wallace v. Fee, 50 Id. 694. 

V. Moore, 18 How. Pr. 421. Further 

decision as Comstock v. White, 31 Barb. 
301. Decision in 18 How. Pr. explained 
(Trade-mark — fraud in the use of) in 2 Pars, 
on Contr. 267 bn, n. o. 

v. Smith, 7 Johns. 87; s. c, 4 If. Y. 

Com. L. Law. ed. 258, with brief note. 

v. Warner, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (?'. & C.) 663. 

Affd, it seems, in 60 If. Y. 647, but without 
opinion. 
Couant v. Tan Schaict, 24 Barb. 87. Ap- 
proved (Theory of personal liability of 
stockholders) in Hawthorn v. Calef, 2 Wall. 
10. 

Conaughty v. Nichols, 42 If. Y. 83. Followed 
(Recovery on cause of action different from 
that alleged) in Lyon v. lsett, 11 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. 355; Ladd v. Arkell, 37 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 40. Disting'd in Beard v. Yates, 
2 Hun, 466 ; Ross v. Mather, 51 If. Y. 
112; Matthews v. Cady, 61 Id. 651; 
Smith v. Frost, 70 Id. 71. Explained and 

■ approved in Greentree ». Iloscnstock? 61 
Id. 583, 589. Applied (Effect of allegation 
of conversion) in Church of the Redeemer 
«. Crawford, 30 Super. Gt. (J. & S.) 319. 
Quoted as containing an elaborate opinion, 
in Pomeroy on Item. § 559, n. 4. 

Conclilin v. Havens. See Putnam v. Wyley. 

v. Taylor, 68 If. Y. 221. See (Costs of 

motion) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 3236, n. 

Condermnn v. Smith, 41 Barb. 404. See 
Van lloozer v. Corey. Disting'd (Comple- 
tion of contract of sale of personal property) 
in Stephens -v. Santee, 49 If. Y. 35, 40. 

Condit v. Baldwin, 21 Barb. 1S1. Affd in 
21 N. Y. 219. See Algur ». Gardiner; Lee 
n. Chadsey. Decision in 21 If. Y. followed 

. (Effect of usurious bonus exacted by agent) 



in Lee v. Chadsey, 3 ^455. Ct. App. Dec. 49; 
Fellows v. Comm'rs of Oneida, 36 Barb. 
658; Esterly v. Purdr, 50 How. Pr. 350, 
which was affd in 66 If. Y. 446, which 
rev'd Hun, 46, which see ; Stout ». Rider, 
12 Id. 576 ; Moore v. Bogart, 19 Id. 228; 
Elmer v. Oakley, 3 Lang. 37; Bell v. Dav, 

32 If. Y. 165; Van Buren v. Stokes, "3 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 511; North v. Sergeant, 

33 Barb. 352. Disting'd in Bank of Salina 
v. Alvord, 31 If. Y. 475 ; Algur i>. Gardiner, 
54 Id. 365 ; Wyeth v. Braniff, 84 Id. 627, 
632. Cited in Wheaton v. Van Voorhis, 
53 How. Pr. 324, as unshaken by Algur 
v. Gardner. Criticised and disting'd in 
Porter n. Mount, 45 Barb. 430. Approved 
with Smith v. Marvin, 27 If. Y. 137; Bell 
v. Day, 32 Id. 165 ; Barretto v. Snowden, 5 

Wend. 181, in Palmer v. Call, U. S. Cir. Ct. 
D. Iowa, 12 Reporter, 194; s. c, 7 Fed. 
Rep. 137. See also Acheson v. Chase, 28 
Mich. 214. Followed with Bell v. Day, 
32 If. Y. 165. in Ballinger v. Bourland, 87 
III. 513; s. c, 29 Am. R. 69, with note, col- 
lating other cases. Examined with Algur 
0. Gardner, 54 If. Y. 360, in New England 
Mortgage Security Co. v. Hendrickson, 13 
Neb. 160. Applied (Ratification of un- 
authorized act of agent) in Smith v. Tracy, 
36 If. Y. 84 ; Thompson v. Craig, 16 Abb. 
Pr. If. S. 33. Applied (Repelling defense 
of usury by proof of absence of corrupt 
agreement) in Shoop v. Clark, 4 Abb. Ct. 
App. Dec. 238. 

Condon v. CaUahan, 9 Abb. If. C. 407. 
Compare (Employment by husband) Potter 
v. Virgil, 67 Barb. 578. 

Cone v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 15 
Hun, 172. Affd in 81 If. Y. 206. See 
Laning v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. 
Decision in 81 If. Y. applied (Duty of 
master to furnish safe machinery) in Kara 
v. Smith, 25 Hun, 146, 148. Disting'd 
(Contributory negligence in servant) in 
White v. -Sharp, 27 Hun, 94. 

v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 3 Sup'm. Ct. 

(T. & C.) 33. Affd in 60 If. Y. 619. 
Decision in 3 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) disting'd 
(Waiver by agent of condition in policy) in 
Thayer v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 567. 
Qited as authority in dissenting opinion of 
Milleu, J., in Mersereau v. Phoenix Mut. 
Ins. Co., 66 if. Y. 285. Disting'd (Right 
of action on fire policy) in Hastings ». West- 
chester Fire Ins. Co., 73 Id. 150. Decis- 
ion in 60 Id. followed (Insurable interest 
of one having right to purchase or redeem) 
in Creighton v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 17 
Hun, 80. Applied (Right of appointed 
payee to sue on policy) in Lasher ». North- 
western Nat. Ins. Co., 18 Id. 102. Applied 
(Waiver by agent of condition in policy) in 
Woodruff®. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 83 N. Y. 
133, 140. See also (Right of subrogation) 
Dick v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 10 Mo. App. 
386. Cited as authority (Parol waiver of 
contract) in Waterman on Sp. Per/. 
§ 386, n. 



174 



OONE-CONHOCTOX STONE: ROAD. 



v. Purcell, 56 K Y. 649. See opinion 

in 11 Nat. Banhr. Reg. 490. 

v. Whitaker, 2 Johns. Gas. 280. Over- 

1 ruled (Costs of non-suit, as affected by dis- 
charge under insolvent act) in Warne v. 
Constant, 5 Johns. 135. 

Congdeu t. Lee, 3 Edit. 304. Quoted (Re- 
ceiver — judgment creditor's bill— discovery) 
in High on Receiv. § 403, n. 1. 

•Conger t. Conger, Sup'm. Ct. Sp. T. Fol- 
lowed (Judgment in divorce case after trial 
before referee) in Schroeter n. Schroeter, 23 
Sun, 230. 

T. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 375. 

Approved and followed with Wibert «. N. 
Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 19 Barb. 36 (Measure 
of damages against carrier for delay in 
transportation) in Kirkland v. Leary, 2 
Sweeny, 677, the Wibert case being thought 
to have been, though overruled in Kent v. 
Hudson River R. R. Co., 22 Barb. 278, yet 
sustained in Jones ». N. Y. & Erie R. R'Co., 
29 Id. 633. 

—7— v. Ring, 11 Barb. 364. Followed (Pur- 
chase of trust property by trustee) in Ter- 
williger v. Brown. 59 Barb. 9, wjjich was 
aff'd in 44 N. Y. 237, which see; Fulton i>. 
"Whitney, 5 Bun, 20. 

• — - v. Van Aerniim, 43 Barb. 602. Rev'd 
by Comm. of App., in Jan., 1871.. 

v. Vandewater, 1 Abb. Pr. N.'S. 126. 

Commented upon (Judgment— when pre- 
sumed to be paid) in Throop Justice's Man. 
2 ed. 174. Compare Code Civ. Pro. §§ 376, 
382, subd. 7, § 414. 

v. Weaver, 20 N. Y. 140. See Brincker- 

hoof v. Phelps; Bush ■». Colo; Driggs v. 
Dwight. Explained and reconciled (Dam- 
ages for breach of contract to convey land) 
withBrinckerhoof b. Phelps, 24 Barb. 100, — 
in Brinckerhoof v. Phelps, 43 Id. 4G9 ; also 
in Bush v. Cole, 28 N. Y. 270. Re-affd in 
Cockcroft v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 69 
Id. 204. 

Congregation Slinner Hashmoin v. Halli- 
day, 3 Robt. 386. Rev'd in 50 N. Y. 
604. 

Congregational Church in Union Tillage, 
Matter of, 6 Abb. N. C. 398. See also 
(Diversion of church property) First Ref'd. 
Presb. Ch. ». Bowdcn, 10 Abb. N. V. 1. . 

Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High 
Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 Barb. 526. 
Rev'd in 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 348; s. a, 45 
N. Y. 291; 6 Am. R. 82. Decision in 45 
N. Y. followed (Use, as trademark, of name 
indicating origin or ownership) in Dunbar 
v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 118; s. c, 24 Am. R. 
395. Applied in Newman ». Alvord, 51 
N. Y. 189, 194. Explained in 2 Pars, on 
Oordr. 257, ba, n. 1 Keller's ed. Id. 257, 
uj, n. I. Applied (Use of word as trade- 
mark) in Hier v. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. 519, 
524. Disting'd in Huwer ■». Danneuhoffer, 
Id. 499, 503. Followed with Glen & Hall 
Manf'g Co. v. Hall, 61 Id. 229; Booth ». 
Jarrett, 52 Sow. Pr. 169 (Assignment of 
property, as carrying right to use name) in 



Pepper v. Labrot, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. Ky., 
12 Reporter, 321 ; s. c, 8 Fed. Rep. 29. 

v. Knowlton, 23 Alb. I. J. 290. Dis- 

tingM (Money recoverable back; in Birkett 
v. C'hatterton, 12 Rep. 441. . 

Congreve v. Morgan, 5 Duer, 49>. Affd as 
Congreve «. Smith, 18 N. Y. 79. Sec Creed 
v. Hartinan ; Jrvin v. Wood. Decision in 5 
Duer disiing'd '(Liability for negligence of 
contractor, &c.) in Potter «. Seyinoor, 4 

• Bosw. 140, 147. Disting'd (Liability for un- 
authorized excavation of highway) in Wen- 
dell v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 4 Abb. Gt. App. 
Bee. 570. Disting'd (Proof of accident as 
evidence of negligence) in Garrison «. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y,, 5 Bosw. 503. Criticised and 
explained (Owner of scuttle in a sidewalk 
as absolute insurer) in Fisher v. Thirkell, 21 
Mich. 1 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 422, 427. 

v. , 18 N. Y. 84. .Disting'd (Lia- 
bility for injury caused by excavation of 
highway) in Wendell v. Mayor, &c. of Troy, 
4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec.\ 571. Followed in 
Andersons. Dickie, 26JH>w. Pr. 117. Ee- 

, affd in Sexton -e. Zett, 44 N. Y. 432. Fol- 
lowed in Irvin v. Wood, 4 Robt. 146, which 
was affd in 51 N. Y. 224, which see. Ap- 
plied in Davenport v. Ituckman, 16 Abb. 
Pr. 352. Quoted in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. 
§ 274, ».•- 2. . Disting'd (Liability of owners 
of premises as insurers) in , Robbins "o. 
Mount, 33 How. Pr. 35. Quoted and dis- 
cussed in 1 Add. on Torts, 245, «. 2, 
Wood's ed. 

v. Smith, 18 If. Y. 79. Aff'g Congreve 

v. Morgan, 5 Duer, 495. See Blake c Ferris; 
City of Buffalo ?>. Holloway ; Creed v. Hart- 
man ; Dygert v. Scheuek; Kelly v. Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y. ; Pack «. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; 
Storrs v. City of Utica, Disting'd (Liability 
for injury caused by excavation of high- 
way) in Wendell «. Mayor,. &c. of N. Y., 4 
Abbs Gt., 4PP- & ec - 570l Eccles v. Darragh, 
46 Super." Ct. (J. &S.) 180. Followed in An- 
derson v. Dickie, 20 How. Pr. 117; lrvin s. 
Wood, 4 Robt. 146, which was affd in 51 
If. Y. 224, which see; Davenport v. Ruck- 
man, 10 Bosw. 37, which was aff'd in 37 
N. Y. 572, which see. Re-afl'd in Sexton 
v. Zett, 44 Id. 432. Quoted and discussed 
in Wood on Nuis. 2 ed. § 2S0. Disting'd 
(Liability of owners of premises as insurers; 
in Bobbins o. Mount, 33 IIow. Pr. 35. 
Examined and compared with Blake ■o. Fer- 
ris, 5 If. V. 43; Pack «. "Mayor, &c. of N. 
Y., 8 Id. 222; Storrs e. City of Ltica, 17 
Id. 104 ; City of Buffalo ■». Holloway, 7 
Id. 493; Kelly ■». Mayor, &e. of N. Y., 
11 Id. ,432, (Liability of employers, con- 
tractors, &e.) in Creed v. Hartinan, 29 Id. 
591, which aff'd 8 Bosw. 128, which see. 
Disting'd (Imputing negligence to one that 
changes condition of street) in Lowrey t. 
Brooklyn City, &c. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. N. 0. 
36. Disting'd in Hume *. Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y, 8 IIuu, 676. 

Conhocton Stone Road v. Buffalo, &c. R. 
R. Co., 52 Barb. 390. Rev'd in 51 If. Y. 573; 



CONKEY- CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO. 



175 



s. c, .10 Am. B. 646. Further decision in 
3 Hun, 523; s. c, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 
651. See Goodale v. Tuttle. Decision in 
Dl JV. Y. cited, with other cases (Liability 
of grantee of land for continuing nuisance 
placed by previous owner) in 14 Am. Dec. 

, 338, n., as according with an overwhelm- 
ing weight of authority. Considered with 
Miller v. Church, 2 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & 0.) 259 
(Necessity of request to remove nuisance) 
and 2 Ghitty on PL cited to the contrary, — 
in Morse v. Borough of Fairhaven, 47 Conn. 
220, where, however, these cases are followed 
(Necessity of knowledge of existence ,pi 
nuisance). 

Conkey v Bond, 34 Barb. 276. Affd in 36 
JV Y. 427; s. c, 3 Abb. Pr. JV S. 415. 
Decision in 36 JV Y. cited (Duty of agent 
under general power to buy) in Wliart. 
Com. on Ag. § 240, n. 

y. Hart. Seee Shuart v. Taylor. 

Conklin v. Barton. See Poillon v. Secor. 

T. Baner, 62 JV Y. 620. Disting'd (Per- 
mission to build under mechanic's lien law) 

'" in Burkitt v. Harpei\ 79 Id. 276. ' 

< v. Egrerton,..21 Wend,. 430. Aft'd in 25 

Id. 224. Decision'in 21 Wend, referred to 
in Matter of Anderson, 5 JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 
302, as overruled (Executors — powers in 
trust) in Bogert v. Hertell, 4 Hill, 492. 
Examined in Battelle v. Parks, 2 Mich. 532; 
citing Roseboom v. Mosher, 2 Den. 01 ; 
Bergen v. Ben net, 1 Cai. Cos. 16. Cited as 
learnedly and ably investigating the subject 
(Powers that survive to administrator de 
bonis non) in Evans v. Chew, 71 Pa. St. 47, 
49, which was cited in 24 Am. Dec. 389, n. 
Cited as authority in Warfleld v. Brand, 13 
Hush (Ky.) 77, 100. Quoted and discussed 
in 2 Perry ori Trusts, 3 ed. § 500, n. 3. 
Decision in 25 Wend, discussed in same 
place. Decision in 21 Wend, reviewed with 
Roome v. Phillips, 27 JV. Y. 357, 363; 
Dunning v. Ocean Nat'l B'k, 61 Id. 497, in 
12 Am. Dec. 102, »., as showing the posi- 
tion of the N. *Y." courts. Disting'd (Sur- 

• vival of power to sell real estate) in Clapp 
v. Brown, 4 Redf. 200. 

v. Fnrman, 57 Barb. 484 ; s. c, 8 Abb. 

Pr. JV. S. 161. Decision in 57 Barb, over- 
ruled (Judgment as evidence against stock- 
holder) in Miller v. White, 50 JV Y. 137. 

v. Moore, 2 Bradf. 179. Followed 

(Vesting of interest that is subject to life 
estate) in Talmadge v. Williamson, 2 Redf. 
455. 

T. Second National Bank of Oswego, 

53 Barb. 512, n. Aff'd in 45 JV. Y. 655. 

T. Stamler, 2 Hilt. 423. Explained 

(Books of account as evidence) in Burke 
v. Wolfe, 38 Super. -Ct. {J.-& S.) 263, 2C9. 

T. Thompson, 29 Barb. 218. Followed 

(Nuisance) in Conklin v. Phoenix Mills of 
Seneca Falls, 62 Id. 299, 309. Disting'd 
(Infant's liability for tort) in Hewitt ». 
Warren, 10 Id. 560, 563. Cited as author- 
ity with Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & D. \ 93 ; 
Bullock ». Babcock, 3 Wend. 391 ; Corning 



v. Corning, 6 JV. Y. 97, in Peterson v. Haff- 
ner, 59 Ind. 130 ; s. c, 26 Am. R. 81, with 
note. 

: t. Wood. See Beals v. Congregation 

B'nai Jeshurun. 

Conkling v. Gandall, 1 Keyes, 228; s. c, 
1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 423. Disting'd (Suffi- 
ciency of complaint in action on note, 
&c.) in Richter v Kramer, 1 City Ct. 348. 
Followed in Judd v. Smith, 3 Hun, 191; 
Tooker v. Arnoux, 76 JV Y. 401. See Code 
Civ. Pro. 1881, § 534, n. 

v. King, 10 Barb. 372. Aff'd in 10 JV. Y. 

440. . 

v. Shelley, 28 JV. Y. 360. Limited 

(Effect of provision in chattel mortgage 
allowing mortgagor to sell) in Brackett v. 
Harvey, 91 Id. 214, which rev'd 25 Hun, 
502, 507, which see. Followed in Ellsworth 
v. Phelps, 30 Id. 646. Disting'd in City 
Banks. Westbury, 16 Id. 458. Approved 
ift Southard v. Benner, 7 Daly, 4\, 43. 

Conley v. Meeker, 9 Weekly Dig. 288. Affd 
in 85 JV Y. 618. 

Coulin v. Cantrell. 51 How. Pr. 312. Affd 
in 64 JV Y. 217. See Yale v. Dederer. 
Decision in 04 WY. followed (Liability of 
married woman for services, &c.) in Muller 
e. Piatt, 31 Hun, 121. Collated with Wil- 
liamson v. Dodge, 5 Id. .497, and other 
cases, in 31 Am. R-' 697, n. Cited in Tyler 
on Inf. & Gov. 2 ed. § 476. Explained and 
disting'd (Intent to charge inferred from 
circumstances) in Salmon v. McEnany, 23 
Hun, 87, 89. 

Connah v. Hale, 23 Wend. 462. Followed 
(Goods delivered to tradesmen, exempt from 
distress for rent) in McCreery v. Clafflin, 37 
Md. 435; s. c, 11 Am. R. 542. 

T. Sedgwick, 1 Barb. 210. Discussed 

(Assignment fpr benefit of creditors — deliv- 
ery of possession) in Burrill ort Assign. 
§ 274, 4 ed. 

Connecticut v. Jackson, 1 Johns. Gh: 13 ; 
s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 471. Applied (Computing 
interest in case of partial payments) in 
French v. Kennedy, 7 Barb. 455; Bennett 
v. Cook,. 2 Hun, 529. Recognized as au- 
thority in Voung «. Hill, 67 JV. Y. 167, 
which rev'd 6 Hun, 619, which see. Fol- 
lowed in Hart v. Doraian, 2 Fla. 445 ; s. c. , 
50 Am. Dec. 285. Explained (Interest on 
interest) in Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 
Cleveland. &c. R: R. Co., 41 Barb. 23. Dis- 
ting'd in Gibbs v. Chisolm, 2 Nott & McG. 
(S. 0.) 38; s. c, 10 Am. Dec. 560. See 
lengthy note to 6 Am. Dec. 188, collating 
cases. Disting'd in Hovey «. Edmison, 22 
Northw. 7*^.594,601. Disting'd (Recovery of 
compound interest) in Schieffelin v. Stewart, 
1 Johns. Ch. 628; Towhsend ». Corning, 3 
JV. Y. Leg. Obs. 97. Explained in Kellogg 
«. Hickok, 1 Wend. 521. Followed in Van 
Benschooten v. Lawson, 6 Johns. Gh. 314. 
Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 
10 Hun, 59. Rev'd in 73 JV. Y. 399; s. c, 
29 Am. R. 171. Decision in 73 JV. Y. ex- 
plained (Action by insurance company to 



176 



CONNECTICUT HUT. UFE INS. CO.— CONRAD. 



recover amount of loss paid, from party 
whose negligence caused it) in First Presb. 
Soc. v. Goodrich Transp. Co,, 12 Rep. 105; 
s. c, 7 Fed. Rep. 257. Applied in Swart- 
out v. C: & N. W. R. Co., 49 Wise. 628. 
Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cleve- 
land, &c. R. R. Co., 23 How. Pr. 180. 
Plaintiffs recovered judgment which was 
affd in 41 Barb. 9; s. c, 26 How. Pr. 225. 
,06018100 in 41 Barb, criticised (Interest 
when allowable on coupons for interest) in 
Wheaton v. Pike, 9 R. I. 132; s. c, 11 Am. 
R. 227. 
Connelly v. Pierce, 7 Wend. 129. Cited as 
authority with Blood «. Goodrich, 9 Id. 68 ; 
Fuller v. Hubbard, 6 Cow. 13 ; Fuller v. 
Williams, 7 Id. 53 (Duty of vendor to pre- 
pare deed) in Smith v. Henry, 2 Eng. (Ark.) 
207; s. c, 44 Am. Bee. 540, 542, with note. 

Conner v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Sandf. 355. 
Att'd in 5 N. Y 285. See Smith ». Mayor, 
&c. of N. Y. Decision in 5 R. Y. applied 
(Public and private statutes) in Bretz v. 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 261 ; 
Phillips b. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Hilt. 489. 
Applied -in dissenting opinion of Welles, 
J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 45 
Barb. 367. Considered and explained with 
Williams v. People, 24 JY. Y. 405; People 
v. Hills, 35 Id. 449 ; People v. O'Brien, 
38 Id. 193, in Healy v. Dudley, 5 Laiis. 
115. Applied (Expression of title of local 
act) in Freeman ». Panama R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 
124; Devlin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 63 W..Y. 
21 ; People ex rel. Comm'rs v. Banks, 67 
Id. 573 ; Central Crosstown R. R. Co. v. 
Twenty-Third St. R. R. Co., 54 How. Pr. 
179. Examined in dissenting opinion of 
Hunt, J., in Baldwin v. Mayor, &c. of N.Y., 
2 Reyes, 409. Explained in People v. Allen, 
42 K Y. 417. Followed in Tifft v. City of 
Buffalo, 82 Id. 204,211. Applied (Nature 
of right to public office and its emoluments) 
in McVeany v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 80 
N. Y. 190, 194. Disting'd with Smith ». 
Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 37 Id. 518; Uolan v. 
Same, 68 Id. 274 ; McVeany v. Same, 80 
Id. 185 ; Terhune v. Same, 88 Id. 247, in 
People ex rel. Ryan v. French, 91 Id. 265. 
Approvingly cited in State v. Douglass, 26 
Wis. 428; s. c, 7 Am. Dec. 87; the case of 
People v. Morrell, 21 Wend. 503, 576, being 
also cited. Cited as authority in Perkins. ». 
Corbin, 45 Ala. 103; s. c, 6 Am. P. 698. 
Decision in 2 Sandf. collated with other 
cases, in 25 Am. Dee. 701, n. 

Comiitt v. Reformed P. D. Church, 4 Bans, 
339. Affd in 54 N. Y. 551. 

Connolly v. Pardon, 1 Paige, 291; s. c, 19 
Am. Dee. 433. See Roman Catholic Orphan 
Asylum «. Emmons. ' 

v. Poillon, 41 Barb. 366. Said in 41 $T. 

Y. 619, to have been affd in Ct. of App. 
June, 1869. 

Connor v. Williams, 2 Robt. 46. Commented 
upon (Statute of frauds — guaranties) in 
Browne on Stat, of Frauds, § 166, 6, 4 ed. 

Connors v. People, 50 & Y. 240. See 



Brandon v. People. Disting'd (Liability of 
accused testifying in his own behalf) in 
People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571, 574; People 
v. Crapo, 76 Id. 288, 291. Followed in 
State v. Ober, 52 N. H. 459; s. c, 13 Am. R. 
88. Cited as authority in State v. Went- 
worth, 65 Me. 234; s. c, 20 Am. R. 688. 
Commented upon (Waiver of constitutional 
privileges; in Cooley on Const. Limit. 5 ed. 
387. 
Conor v. Dempsey, 49 K Y. 665. For the 
rule in case of executory contract see cases 
cited (Acceptance of goods after opportunity 
to examine) in Abb. Tr. Fv. 348, n. 5. 
Conover, Matter of, 3 Abb. Pr. 74. Disap- 
proved (Proceedings to obtain official books 
and papers) in People v. Allen, 42 Barb. 
203. 
Conover v. Devlin, 15 How. Pr. 470; s. c, 

more fully, 6 Abb. Pr. 228. 
y. — — , 24 Barb. 587. Approved (Ap- 
plication to compel delivery of books, &c. 
pertaining to public office) in Matter of 
Davis, 19 How. Pr; 327. 

v. Hoffman, 1 Bosw. 214. Afi'd in. 15 

Abb. Pr. 100; s. c, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 
429. 

v. Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Den. 254. Afl'd 

in 1 2T. Y. 290. See point's of counsel in 
How. App. Cas. 604. See Van Deusen v. 
Charter Oak. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Decis- 
ion in 3 Den. disting'd with Masters ». Madi- 
son County Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Barb. 624 
(Powers of officers and agents of insurance 
companies) in Gibbs v. Richmond County 
Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Daly, 203. Explained 
in 2 Oreenl. on Ev. 14 ed. § 405, n. 1. 
Decision in 1 N. Y. followed with Salomes 
v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 3 Keyes, 416, in 
Northrup v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 47 
Mo. 435 ; s. c, 4 Am. R. 337, 341. See to 
the contrary 1 Re8f. on Railw. 590. See 
also Abb. Tr. Ev. 42. Decision in 3 Ben. 
relied on (Mortgage not to be regarded as an 
alienation) in Harral v. Leverty, 50 Conn. 46 ; 
s. c, 47 Am. R. 608, 617; Hubbard v. 
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 33 Iowa, 325; s. c, 
11 Am. R. 125, 132. 
Conrad v. Trnstees of Ithaca, 16 K Y. 158. 
See Hickok v. Trustees of Plattsburg; Hut- 
sou v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. ; Mayor, &c. of 
N. Y. v. Furze ; Rochester White Lead Co. 
». City of Rochester; Smith ■». City of 
Rochester; Wilson v. Mayor, -&c. of N. Y. 
Applied (Liability of municipal corporation 
for negligence of agents) in Baldwin ». City 
of Oswego, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 74 ; Deyoe 
v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 1 Hun, 343 ; 
Limited in Onderdonk v. City of Brooklyn, 
31 Barb. 506. Explained in Saw-mill Co. v. 
City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 39. Cited in In- 
man «. Tripp, 11 R. I. 520; s. c, 23 Am. R. 
520, 525. Explained with Hickok v. 
Trustees of Plattsburg, 16 K Y. 161 (Lia- 
bility of municipal corporation for injury 
resulting from defect in public work) in 
Peck i>. Village of. Bataviii, 32 Barb. 637. 
Disting'd as to sidewalks,— in Hart v. City 



CONRAD— CONWAY. 



177 



of Brooklyn, 36 Id. 227, but followed as 
to sidewalks in N. Y. city, in Davenport 
v. Euckman, 10 Bosw. 29, which was aft'd in 
37 If. Y. 568, which see. Followed as to 
sidewalks generally, in Wilson 1). City of 
Watertown, 3 Hun, 512. Disting'd as in-, 
applicable to counties, in Ensign «. Super- 
visors of Livingston, 25 Id. 22 ; Herring- 
ton v. Village of Corning, 51 Barb. 411. 
Disting'd with Hickok i>. Trustees of Platts- 
burg, 16 If. Y. 161, in Mills v. City of 
Brooklyn, 32 Id. 500. Applied in Hines v. 
City of Lockport, 60 Barb. 385 ; Clemcnce 
v. City of Auburn, 66 If. Y. 341 ; Buffalo, 
&c. Turnpike Co. v. City of Buffalo, 1 
Sup'm. Ot. (T. & U.) 540; Nims «. Mayor, 
&c. of Troy, 3 Id. 7. 
v. Williams, 6 Sill, 444. Applied (Ef- 
fect of testimony of uncontradicted witness) 
" in Stafford v. Leamy, 43 flow. Pr. 49. Dis- 
ting'd in Kavanagh <o. Wilson, 70 If. Y. 179. 
Doubted (Forbidding jury to give credit to 
evidence) in Roth v. Wells, 29 Id. 492. 
Conran v. Lakey, 7 Weekly Dig. 161. Rev'd 

as Coman <o. Lakey, in 80 N. Y. 345. 
Conro v. Gray. See Conro v. Port Henry 
Iron Co. 

v. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 27. 

Previous decision as Conro i>. Gray, 4 How. 
Pr. 166. Decision in 4 How. Pr. quoted 
and explained (Private corporations — credi- 
tor's rights) in Morawelz on Corp. § 572. 
Decision in 12 Barb, approved (Directors of 
a corporation cannot destroy it) in Abbott v. 
Am. Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 578, 584, 
592. Quoted and explained in Morawetz on 
Corp. § 241. Referred to as containing a 
fiill discussion (Creditor's suits) in Pomeroy 
on Rem. § 267, n. 1. Quoted in Wait on 
Fraud. Oonv. § 68, n. 1. 

Conroe r. Bird sail, 1 Johns. Cos. 127; s. c, 
1 Am. Bee. 105, with note; 1 If. Y. Com. L. 
Law. ed. 268, with brief note. Criticised 
(Infants' contracts — distinction between void 
and voidable) in 1 Pars, on Contr. 329, n. b ; 
Tyler on Inf. & Conn. 2 ed. 12. Shown in 
1 Am. Dec. 107, n., to have been approved 
in N. Y. and elsewhere, though doubted 
(Validity of deeds of an infant) in Story on 
Sales, § 28. Criticised and reconciled with 
other cases (Doctrine of estoppel in pais as 
applicable to infants) in 44 Am. Dec. 286, n. 

v. National Protection Ins. Co., 10 How. 

Pr. 403. See (Change of venue) Code Civ. 
Pro. 1881, § 986, n. 

Conroy v. Gale, 5 Bans. 344. Said in Stack 
v. Bangs, 6 Bans. 262, to have been affd in 
Ct. of A pp. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. T., 6 Daly, 490. 

Aff'd, it seems, in 67 If. Y. 610, but without 
opinion. 

v. Warren, 3 Johns. Cos. 259 ; s. c, 2 

Am. Dec. 156. Approved (Liability in case 
of non-presentment) in Matter of Brown, 2 
Story G. Ct. 502. Applied (Right to sue on 
note indorsed in blank) in Barlow v. Myers, 
24 Hun, 286, 289. 

I.— 12 



Conseqna v. Fanning, 3 Johns. Ch. 587. 
Rev'd in 17 Johns. 511. 

Cousiderant v. Brisbane, 14 How. Pr. 487. 
Subsequent decision on demurrer to amended 
complaint, in 2 Bosw. 471, which was rev'd 
in 22 If. Y. 389. Decision in 22 If. Y. ex- 
plained (Action by trustee of express trust) 
in Grinnell v. Buchanan, 1 Daly, 538. Fol- 
lowed in Brown ». Cherry, 66 Barb. 635. 
Disting'd with Devol v. Barnes, 7 Hun, 342 
(Actions by agent) in Iselin ■». Rowlands, 30 
Id. 488. Cited as containing an exhaus- 
tive discussion, in Pomeroy on Rem. § 175, 
n. 1. Cited as a fully considered case (Na- 
ture of express trusts) in Id. § 174. Decis- 
ion in 14 How. Pr. distiug'd with Grant "v. 
Johnson, 5 If. Y. 247 (Promise to pay, 
when conditional) in Chase v. Behrman, 10 
Daly, 344. 

Constantino v. Tan Winkle, 2 Hill, 240. 
Rev'd in 6 Hill, 177. See (Married woman's 
deed) Van Winkle b. Constantine, 10 iV. Y. 
422. 

- — v. Wake, 1 Sweeny, 239. See authority 
reviewed (Sub-lease and assignment) in 16 
Am. L. Rev. 31. 

Continental Nat. B'k v. Nat. B'k of Com- 
monwealth, 50 If. Y 575. Followed (Re- 
quisites of equitable estoppel) in Voorhees 
■». Olmstead, 3 Hun, 754, which was affd in 
66 If. Y. 113, which sec. Compared with 
other cases in Vietor v. International Naviga- 
tion Co., 45 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 129, 142. 
Relied on, Blair v. Wait, 69 N. Y. 113, in 
Anderson v. Hubble, 93 Ind. 570; s. c, 47 
Am. R. 394. See cases collected in 2 
Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. 265, n. Disting'd 
(Estoppel to recover money paid on forged 
paper) in White ». Continental Nat. B'k, 64 
If. Y. 321. Applied in Marine Nat. B'k v. 
Nat. City B'k, 36 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 479. 
Extended and applied in U. S. v. Nat. Park 
B'k, 6 Fed. Rep. 854. 

Converse v. Kellogg, 7 Barb. 590. See Hone 
v. Van Schaick. Disting'd (Suspension of 
division of estate) in Doubleday v. Newton, 
27 Barb. 441. Cited as authority (Death 
referred to in will — when death happening 
in lifetime of testator) in Kelly t>. Kelly, 61 
If. Y. 50. Disting'd (Consideration for 
agreement) in White v. Baxter, 41 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S.) 367. Disapproved (Effect of de- 
ferring payment of legacy) in Bliven Q. Sey- 
mour, 84 N. Y. 469. 

Conway v. Bush, 4 Barb. 564. Disting'd 
(When title passes to vendee) in Morey v. 
Medbury, 10 Hun, 540, 543. 

v. Mayor, &c. of N. ¥.. 6 Daly, 515. 

Further decision in 8 Id. 306. 

v. , 4 Hun, 43. Modified and affd in 

63 If. Y. 504. 

v. Starkweather, 1 Den. 113. Explained 

and followed (Holding over by tenant) in 
Schuyler «. Smith, 51 If. Y. 309, 315. 
Approved in Witt «. Mayor, &c. of New York, 
6 Robt. 441, 451. See to the contrary 
(Tenant's estoppel) Welland Canal Co. v. 



178 



CONWAY— COOK. 



Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480. But see Abb. Tr. 
Ev. 528, 529. 

v. Williams, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (71 & C.) 089. 

Reported in 2 Hun, 642. 

Cook t. Allen, o Hun, 561. Affd in 67 
27. Y. 578. 

v.- Barnes, 36 27. Y. 520. Cited as 

settled law (Effect of taking usurious 
security for valid debt) in Gerwig v. Sit- 
terly, 56 27. Y. 217, which partially rev'd 
64 Barb. 626, which see. Applied in Pat- 
terson e. Birdsall, 64 27. Y. 298. 

v. Barr, 44 27. Y. 158. Cited (Answer 

under oath, when admissible against the 
party making it) in 2 Wha'rt. Com. on Ev. 
§ 1116. See to the contrary, cases cited 
(Proof of express trust) in Abb. Tr. Ev. 
233, n. 3. Explained with Peabody v. 
Speyers, 56 27. Y. 230 (Memorandum re- 
quired by statute of frauds) in Warfield v. 
Wisconsin Cranberry Co., 63 Iowa, 314. 

v. Beal, 1 Bosw. 497. Aff'd in Ct. of 

App., Dec. 1862. 

v. Brockway, 21 Barb. 331. Explained 

and limited (Opinion as to quantity of lost or 
destroyed property) in Harpending v. Shoe- 
maker, 37 Barb. 370, 290. Disting'd in 
Argotsinger v. Vines, 82 27. Y. 308. 

v. Chainnlain Transportation Co. Ap- 
proved (Rights of one who when lawfully 
using property exposes it to accidental 
injury) in Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. 
R. Co., 22 27. Y. 209, 215. Approved with 
Fero s. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., in 
Murphy v. Chicago, &c. R'y Co., 45 Wis. 
222; s. c, 30 Am. R. 721. Approved and 
cited with Fero v. Buffalo & State Line R. 
R. Co., 22 27. Y. 209; Corwin v. N. Y. & 
Erie R. Co., 13 Id. 42; Shepard v. N. Y. & 
Erie R. Co., 35 Id. 641, in Cressey «. North- 
ern R. R. Co., 59 27. H. 564; s. c, 47 Am. 
R. 227. Limited in JSesee «. Chicago & N. 
W. R. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 76; s. c, fi Am. R. 
642, 647. Explained (Damages for injury 
to building) in Agate v. Lowenbein, 6 Daly, 
291, 294. Cited, with other cases, as op- 
posed to the doctrine held in Chicago & 
Northwestern R. R. Co., 54 III. 504; s. c, 5 
Am. R. 155 (Contributory negligence in a 
landowner adjoining a railroad) in 5 Am. R. 
157,- n. Relied on with Field v. N. Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 32 27. Y. 339; Fero v. 
Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 22 Id. 209,- 
in Kellogg v. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 
26 Wis. 223; s. c, 7 Am. R. 69, 72, 76. 
Followed with Fero ». Buffalo & State Line 
R. R. Co., 22 27. Y. 215, in Howell «. Rail- 
road, 57 27. H. 132; s. c, 24 Am. It. 59, 62. 
Cited in Delaware, Lackawanna, &c. R. R. 
Co. v. Salmon, 10 Vroom (27. J.) 299; s. c, 
23 Am. R. 214, 224. Cited with approval 
(Judgment against non-resident — when good 
by reason of waiver) in Dearing v. B'k of 
Charleston, 5 Oa. 497; s. c, 48 Am. Dee. 
300, 317, wth note. 

v. Clark, 8 Hun, 247; a. c, as Cook ®. 

Rogers, 5 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 493. Affd 
in 68 27. Y. 178. 



t. Commercial Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 40- 

s. c, 6 Am. Dec. 353 ; 5 27. Y. Com. L. 
Law. ed. 53, with brief note. Decision in 
11 Johns, criticised (Barratry in respect to 
cargo, as well as to vessel) in Natchez Ins. 
Co. v. Stantori, 2 Smedet \'& M. (Miss.) 340; 
s. c, 41 Am. Dee. 592, 600, with note. 

v. Cook, 1 Barb. Gh, 639, 644. Applied 

(Proceedings collateral to action for divorce) 
in Kamp «. Kamp, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 
241, 245. 

v. Ellis, 6 Hill, 466. See Tillotson v. 

Cheetham. Followed (Defendant's liability 
in civil action not barred by criminal pro- 
ceedings against him) in Hoadley v. Watson 
45 Vt. 289; s. c, 12 Am. R. 197. Disap- 
proved (Exemplary damages in case of 
offense punishable by criminal law) in Fay 
v. Parker, 53 27. H. 342; s. c, 16 Am. R. 
270, 315. Cited with Fry v. Bennett, 4 
Duer, 247, in Taylor v. Grand Trunk R'y 
Co., 48 27. H. 304 ; s. c, 2 Am. R. 229, 240. 
Approved in Klopfer v. Brorcme, 26 Wis. 
372. Included in Sedgw. Cas. on Duma. 
741. Discussed in 2 Oreenl. on En. 14 ed. 
§ 253, n. 2. 

v. Esleeck, 8 Abb. Pr. 170. Affd as 

Cooks. Kelsey, in 19 if. F. 412. 

v. Farmer, 11 Abb. Pr. 40. Affd in 12 

Id. 359; s. c, 34 Barb. 95; 21 How. Pr. 
286. 

v. Ferral, 13 Wend. 285. Approved with 

Dox v. Dey, 3 Id. 356 ; Porter e. Rose, 12 
Johns. 209 (Plaintiff's duty to show perform- 
ance or readiness) in Hough v. Rawson, 17 
III 591. 

v. Fincli. See Bleecker v. Smith. 

v. Freudenthal, 80 27. Y. 202. Affg 

Cook v. Horwitz, 14 Hun, 542. Decision in 
80 27. Y. confirmed (Invalidity of under- 
taking) in Toles e. Adee, 84 27. Y. 222. 

v. Gregg, 46 27. Y. 439. See Rockwell 

v. Nearing. Decision in Sup'm Ct. here aff'd, 
but not reported, followed (Constitutionality 
of statute authorizing seizure of trespass- 
ing animals) in Squares v. Campbell, 41 
How. Pr. 193, where Fox «. Dunckel, 38 
Id. 136; Campbell «. Evans, 54 Barb. 566; 
McCpnnell «. Van Aerman, 56 Id. 534; 
Leavitt v. Thompson, Id. 542, were also 
compared. 

v. Harris, 61 27. Y. 448. Cited with 

Gibney e. Marchay, 34 Id. 303 (Admissions 
made by owner of estate in respect to such 
estate) in 2 Whart. Com. on Ev. § 1157. 

v. Hill, SSandf. 349. Applied (Doctrine 

of absolutely privileged communications not 
to be extended) in Maurice v. Warden, 54 
Md. 233; s. c, 39 Am. R. 384. 
V. Horwitz, 10 Ilim, 586. Further pro- 
ceeding in 14 Id. 542, which was aff'd as 
Cook v. Freudenthal, 80 N. Y. 202. 

v. Kelley, 12 Abb. Pr. 35. Affd in 14 

Id. 406. 

v. Kelsey. 19 27. Y. 412. Affg Cook «. , 

Esleeck, 8 Abb. Pr. 170. 

v. Kroemeke, 4 Daly. 268. Opposed 

with Hart v. Hoffman, 44 Mow. Pr. 168 



COOK -COOKE. 



179 



(Burden of proof on broker who claims com- 
missions) in Iselin v. Griffith, 62 Iowa, 668. 

v. Litchfield, 5 Sand/. 330. Rev'd in 

N. Y. 279. Subsequent decision in 2 
Bosw. 137. Decision in 9 N~. Y. disting'd 
(Protest as including demand by implication) 
in Brennan v. ,Lowry, 4 Daily, 254. Dis- 
ting'd (Sufficiency of notice to indorscr) 
in Artisan's Bk. v. Backus, 31 Id. 100, 
which aff'd 31 How. Pr. 242, which see. 
Disting'd and limited in Bank of Coopers- 
town v. Woods, 28 N. Y. 558, 505. Ap- 
plied in Arnold v. Kinloch, 50 Barb. 48 ; 
Youngs v. Lee, 12 K Y. 554. Collated with 

'Artisans' Bank ». Backus, 36 Id. 100; 
Pahquioque Bank«. Martin, 11 ^156. Pr. 29! ; 
Dole v. Gold, 5 Barb. 490, in 26 Am. P. 
505, n. Explained and applied (Contract 
of indorsement, as governed by law of 
place) in "Weil v. Lange, 6 Daly, 550. Ex- 
plained (Law of place of note) in Dickin- 
son v. Edwards, 77 AT. Y. 586, as not incon- 
sistent with Jewell .«. Wright, 30 Id, 259. 
Approved (Commencement of indorsees 
liability) and applied to acceptor, — inTilden 
n. Blair, 21 Wall. 247. Decision in 5 
Sandf applied (Law of place of note) in 
Overton i>. Bolton, 9 Heish, (Term.) 762 ; s. 
c, 24 Am. P. 367, 374. 

v. McClure, 2 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 434. 

ReVd in 58 N. Y. 437. 

v. McDoel, 3 Den. 317. Aff'd in 2 N. Y. 

110. 

v. Moseley, 13 Wend. 277 ; s. c, 12 N. Y. 

Oorn. L. Law. ed. 373, with brief note on 
requisites of warranty. Explained in 1 Pars, 
on Oontr. 580, n. n. 

v. Newman, 8 How. Pr. 523. Quoted 

(Assignment— personal torts as distinguished 
from rights adhering to property) in 1 Pars, 
on Oonir. 226, n. h. 

v. Passage, 4 How. Pr. 360. Followed 

(New trial in ejectment under the Code) in 
Post v. Moran, 61 Id. 122. 

v. President of N. Y. Floating' Dry 

Dock Co., 1 Hilt. 436. Followed (Liability 
of dock company for injury from defective 
construction) in Mulcahy v. N. Y. Floating 
Dry Dock Co., 8 Daly, 93. 

v. Rogers, 5 Sup'm* Ct. (T. & C.) 493 : 

s. c, as Cook «. Clark, 3 Run. 247. Aff'd 
in 68 N. Y. 178. 

v. Satterlee, 6 Cow. 108; s. c, 16 Am. 

Dee. 432. Approved (Instrument, when bill 
of exchange) in Munger v. Shannon, 61 
N. Y. 251, 257. Disting'd with Atkinson 
<D. Manks, 1 Cow. 691 ; Munger v. Shannon, 
61 A 7 . Y. 251, in Corbitt v. Clark, 45 Wis. 
403 ; s. c, 30 Am. li. 763. Included with 
notes, in pedf. & B. Lead. Cos. on B. of 
'ExcTb.%. Also included in Bigel. on B. & 
N. 2 ed. 9. Discussed in Id. 15. 

— — v. Sonle, 45 How. Pr. 340; s. c, less 
fully, 1 Sufm. Ct. (T. & C.) 116. Aff'd in 
56 K. Y. 420. See with decision in 06 N. Y. 
(Damages for lessor's right to repair) Ar- 
nold 1>. Clark, 45 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 252, 
256. 



v. Starkweather, 13 All. Pr. K S. 392, 

400. Followed (Relief against imitation of 
trade-mark) in Brown v. Mercer, 37 Super. 
Ct. (J. S S.) 265, 268. Followed (Packages, 
&c. as trade-marks) in Godillot v. Hazard, 
44 Id. 427, 433. 

v. Travis, 22 Barb. 338. Aff'd in 20 

N. Y. 400. See Thomas v. Crofut. Decision 
in 20 A r . Y. followed (Effect of conveyance 
by sheriff as against purchasers without 
notice) in Reynolds v. Darling, 42 Barb. 
418. Followed (Possession as notice) in 
Staples v. Fenton, 5 Hun, 172. Disting'd 
(Duty of purchaser to search for incum- 
brances as against title not appearing by 
records) in Crane v. Turner, 7 Id. 359. 
Cited with other cases as holding a uniform 
doctrine (Conveyance entitled to be recorded, 
as constructive notice to subsequent pur- 
chasers) in Edwards ®. McKenna, 22 Nbrthw. 
Pep. 20, 23. 

v. Wardens, &c. of St. Paul's Church, 

5 Hun, 293. Aff'd in 67 JST. Y. 594. Decis- 
ion in 5 Hun quoted (Ejectment — rever- 
sioners) in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to 
Land, § 212. 

v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150; s. c, 14 

Am. R. 202. Applied (Jurisdiction of 
State court in bankruptcy matters) in Brew- 
ers' & M. Ins. Co. ». Davenport, 10 LTun, 
264, 269 ; Olcott v. McLean, 50 How. Pr. 
455. Followed in Rutherford ». Ilewcv, 
59 Id. 235; Tyler v. McCollum, 19 Hun, 
623. Referred to as superseded by amend- 
ment of June 22, 1874, in Olcott v. McLean, 
10 LTun, 280, but see to the contrary Wente 
v. Young, 12 Id. 221; Kidder v. Horrobin, 
72 N. Y. 105. Approved in Sherwood v. 
Burns, 58 hid. 502, 507 ; Isett v. Stuart, 80 
111. 402 ; s. c, 22 Am. P. 194. 

Cooks v. Meeker, 36 N. Y. 15. Followed 
(Interest on legacy) in Matter of Lynch, 52 
How. Pr. 367 ; Pierce v. Chamberlin, 41 
Id. 501. Explained in Devlin's Estate, 
1 Tuck. 460, as, thougn thought to have over- 
rule! Bradner v. Faulkner, 12 N. Y. 472, 
yet not to. have dealt with a legacy of a 
sum of money. Explained and disting'd in 
Nahmcns «. Copely, 2 Dem. 253. 

v. Millard, Lans. 243. Aff'd in 65 

N. Y. 352; s..c, 22 Am. It 019. Decision 
in 65 N. Y. quoted and explained (Statute 
of frauds — goods over fifty dollars — sale dis- 
tinguished from contract for work and labor) 
in 1 Bmj. on Sales, § 109, n. 8 (Corbin's 
4 Am. ed.). Explained in Id. § 109, n. y, 
(Bennett's 4 Am. ed.). Quoted (Acceptance 
preceding receipt) in 1 Id. § 157, n. 9 (Cor- 
bin's 4 Am. ed.l. 

v. Smith, 3 ' Sandf. Ch. 333. Discussed 

(Assignment for benefit of creditors— other 
transfers in connection therewith) in Burrill 
on Assign. § 357, 4 ed. 

v. State Nat. Bank of Boston, 3 Abb. 

Pr. K S. 339; s. c, 50 Barb. 339. Further 
decision in 1 Lans. 494, qualified on appeal 
in 52 N. Y. 96; s. c, 11 Am. P. 667-. Sec 
First Nat. B'k of Whitehall v. Lamb; 



180 



COOKINGJJAM— COOPER 



Marine Nat. Bank v. Nat. City. B'k ; Toall 
0. Fclton. Decision in 52 N~. Y. explained 
(Jurisdiction of State courts in actions 
against national banks) in Central Nat. Bk. 
«. Kichland Nat. B'k of Mansfield, 52 How. 
Pr. 137. Reaff d and applied in Robinson 
v. Nat. Bk. of Newberne, 81 N. Y. 390. 
Applied in Southwick v. First Nat. Bk. of 
Memphis, 7 Hun, 97; 20 Id. 349, 355. 
Followed in Cadle v. Tracy, 11 Blatclif. G Gt. 
101, 108. Reluctantly followed (Application 
by corporation for removal of cause) in Mix 
v. Andes Ins. Co., 9 Hun, 399, which was 
rev'd in 74 JST. Y. 53, 58, which see. Criti- 
cised and questioned in Quigley v. Central 
Pacific R. R. Co., 11 Nev. 350; s. o., 21 
Am. R. 757. Explained (Liability of bank 
certifying check) in Marine Nat. Bk. v. Nat. 
City Bk., 59 N. Y. 72. Followed with First 
Nat. B'k of Jersey City e. Leach, 52 Id. 
350, in French v. Irwin, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 401 : 
s. c, 27 Am. R. 769. See criticism of 
syllabus (Submitting particular facts to 
jury) in 9 Alb. L. J. 255. Decisions in 1 
Lans. and 50 N. Y. explained (Review of 
order of removal to U. S. court) in Cham- 
berlain v. Amer. Nat. Life, &c. Co., 11 
Hun, 373. Compare (National bank a for- 
eign corporation) Code Civ. Pro. § 3343, 
subd. 18. 

Cookinffhain v. Lasher, 38 Barb. 656. Aft'd 
in 2 Reyes, 454; s. c, 1 Abb. Gt. App. Dec. 
436. 

Cooley v. Betts, 24 Wend. 203. Referred to 
in Whart. Com. on Ag. § 787, n , as con- 
troverting with much justice (Demand in 
case of suits against foreign factors) Clark 
v. Moody, 17 Mass. 145 ; Dodge v. Perkins, 
9 Pick. 368, the case of Terwilliger v. Beals, 
6 Lans. 403, being also cited (Duty of selling 
factor to make statement of dealings). 

v. Howe Machine Co., 53 K Y. 620. 

Disting'd (Assumption of debt) in Roe v. 
Barker. 82 Id. 431, 435. 

v. Lawrence, 5 Dicer, 605. Followed 

(Submission of defendant to jurisdiction of 
court) in Krause v. Avcrill, 4 Civ. Pro. R. 
{Browne) 410. Considered in dissenting 
opinion of Bbady, J., in Chatham Nat. Bank 
v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of West. Virginia, 
LSutfm. Ct. (T. & C.) 202. 

Coon v. Knap, 8 JST. Y. 402. Another decis- 
ion, as it seems, in 13 How. Pr. 175. Decis- 
ion in 8 N. Y. commented on and disting'd 
(Effect of payment by debtor of sum less 
than indebtedness. Parol evidence to ex- 
plain receipt) in Hammond v. Christie, 5 
Robt. 160. Examined with other cases 
(Parol evidence to explain receipt) in Howard 
v. Norton, 65 Barb. 101, 167. With decis- 
ion in 13 How. Pr. see (Extension of time) 
Code Civ. Pro. 1881, § 784, n. 

v. Syracuse & Utica R. R. Co., 6 Barb. 

231. AffU in 5 JST. Y. 492. Decision in 5 
J¥. Y. disting'd (Liability of employer for 
injury caused by negligence of co-servant) in 
Russell v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Duer, 
41, which was rev'd in 17 N. Y. 134, which 



see. Cited as authority (Discharge' of prin- 
cipal from liability for negligence of ser- 
vants) in dissenting opinion of Allen, J., in 
Smith «. N. Y. Central R. R.-Co., 24 N. Y. 
240. Followed in Ross v. N. Y. Central, &c. 
R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 495; Sherman v. Roch- 
ester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 17 K Y. 155; 
Warner v. Erie R'y Co., 39 Id. 471. Ap- 
proved in Whaalan «. Mad River R. R., 
8 Ohio (iV. <S'.) 249. Commented upon in 
Ang. on Carr. § 578, 5 cd. 

Coope v. Bowles, 42 Barb. 87; s. c, 18 Abb. 
Pr. 442; 28 How. Pr. 10. See Deming v. 
Colt. Compare (Necessity of alleging judg- 
ment) Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. N. G. 
184. Commented upon (Power of partners 
to make assignment for benefit of creditors) 
in Burrill on Assign. % 85, 4 ed. 

Cooper. Matter of, 22 N~. Y. 07; s. c, 11 Abb. 
Pr. 301; 20 How. Pr. 1. Rev'g 10 Abb. 
Pr. 348; 19 How. Pr. 97, 136; 31 Barb. 
353. See case and points, in Ct. of App. 
Cas., June, 1860, Law Inst. Libr., N. Y. city. 

Cooper v. Barber, 24 Wend. 105. See Intro- 
duction to Wendell's Starkie on Slander and 
Libel. Cited in 2 Kent Com. 26, n. a, as 
incorrectly decided (Evidence in mitigation 
of damages in action for libel). 

v. Burr, 45 Barb. 9. See Millspaugh v. 

Putnam. Applied (Evidence to sustain gift 
inter vivos) in Trow v. Shannon, 8 Daly, 
239, 242. 

v. Dedrick. See Jackson v. Potter; 

McLaren v. Watson ; Smith v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co. ; Watson v. McLaren. 

v. Eastern Transportation Co., 75 K 

Y. 116. See Colgrove v. N. Y. Central, &c. , 
R. R. Co. 

v. Felter, 6 Lans. 485. Questioned 

(Disputed claims against estates) in Under- 
bill v. Newburger, 4 Red/. 499, 503. 

v. Greeley, 1 Den. 347. Collated with 

other cases (Slander and libel — distinction 
between) in Bigel. Cas. on Torts, 108 ; 1 
Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 127. 

v. Kane, 19 Wend. 386; s. c, LawsoWs 

Usages & Customs, 339. See Place v. Union 
Express Co. Compare (Ownership of mate- 
rials) Morgan v. Stevens, 6 Abb. If. O. 
3o6, n. Included (Contracts — evidence of 
usage to explain) in Lawson's Lead. Com. 
Law Cas. Simplified, 80. 

v. Newland, 17 Alb. Pr. 342. Followed 

(Effect of assignment of mortgage without 
bond) in Merritt v. Bartholick, 47 Barb. 
253. 

v. Shaver, 41 Barb. 151. Questioned 

(Notice of assessment upon premium notes) 
in Sands v. Graves, 58 K Y. 94, 99. Over- 
ruled in effect in Sands v. Sanders, 26 Id. 
239. 

v. Smith. See Hudson v. Smith. 

v. Stone, 24 Wei.d. 434. Quoted and 

collated with other cases (Libel— requisites 
of) in 1 Hare & W. Am. Lead. Cas. 5 ed. 
127. 

v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95. Explained and 

limited (Merger) in De Lisle '). Herbs, 25 



COPE— COEN EXCHANGE IKS. CO. 



181 



Hun, 485, 488. Referred to with Lawrence 
v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 13 IT. Y. 200; 
Terrett v. Crombio, Lans. 82 (Dower aa 
affected by equitable mortgage) in Tyler on 
Inf. & Cov. 2ed..§ 395. 

Cope v. Alden,'53 Barb. 350; s. c, 37 How. 
Pr. 181. Affd as Cope v. Wheeler, 41 K Y. 
303. Earlier decision as McCraney v. Alden, 
in 46 Barb. 272. 

v. Wheeler, 41 N. Y. 303. Previous 

decision as McCraney v. Alden, in 46 Barb. 
272. See Cope «. Alden. Decision in 41 
iV. Y. disting'd (Usurious mortgage as valid 
lien) in Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. «. Nel- 
son, 78 N. Y. 137, 153, which affd 13 Hun, 
324, which see. 
Copperman v. People, 1 Hun, 15; s. c, 3 
Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 199. Affd in 56 N. 
Y. 591. See Coleman v. People. Decision 
in 56 F. Y. applied (Evidence of similar 
transactions to show guilty intent) in Wey- 
nian v. People, 4 Hun, 519. Followed in 
People ex rel. Willis v. Justices of Special 
Sessions, 10 Id. 158. Approved in Cole- 
man v. People, 58 N. Y. 55S. 

Coppers' Case, 7 Abb. N. C. 121 ; s. c, as 
People ex rel. Coppers v. Trustees of St. 
Patrick's Cathedral, and also as Coppers v. 
Trustees of St. Patrick, s Cathedral, 58 How. 
Pr. 55. The first of these two proceedings 
rev'd in 21 Hun, 184; and the latter rev'd 
in Id. 233, but without opinion. See also 
(Cemetery lots) Thompson ». Hickey, 8 
Abb. jV. O. 159. Compare Partridge v. 
First Church, 39 Md. 631. 

Corbett v. De Comean, 4 Abb. N~. C. 252 ; 
s. c, 04 How. Pr. 506. Rev'd in 5 Abb. JST. 
G. 169; s. c, 44 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 300. 
Further proceedings in 45 Super. Ct. 
(J. & S,) 587 ; Id. 588 ; Id. 637. See Phoenix 
d. Dupuy. Decision in 54 How. Pr. 
criticised (Order for examination of party 
before trial in action for libel) in Kinney v. 
Roberts, 26 Uun, 160. 

v. Eno, 13 Abb. Pr. 65. Examined with 

other cases (Denial of motion to strike out 
answer as sham) in McCarty o. O'Donnell, 
7 Hobt. 034. 

v. Gibson, 16 Hun, 241. Further pro- 
ceeding in 18 Id. 49. 

v. Ward, 3 Bosw. 032. Overruled (Costs 

to one or more successful defendants) in 
Allis v. Wheeler, 56 N. Y. 50. 

Corbin, Corporation of, t. Gordon, 25 Hun, 
59. Abridgt. s. c, 12 Weekly Dig. 570. 

v. Jackson, 14 Wend. 619; s. c, 28 

Am. Dee. 550. See Jackson i>. Harde; 1 . 

Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517. See 
Crispin «. Babbitt; Laning v. N. Y. Central 
R. R. Co. ; Malone v. Hathaway. Applied 
(Liability for negligence of superior servant) 
in Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun, 592. Followed 
in Ryan v. Bagaley, 50 Mich. 179; s. c, 
43 Am. It. 35. Cited with Laning v. "N Y. 
Central R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521, in Willis 
v. Oregon R'y &, Nav. Co., 11 Greg. 203. 

v. Judson, 24 iV. Y. 106. See Andrews 

v. Gleuville Woolen Co. Commented on 



(Reference — assessing damages — counsel 
fees) in Hoffm. on Referees, 135. 

Cordell v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 
Hun, 401. Rev'd in 64 N. Y. 535. 
Subsequent decisions in 70 Id. 119; s. c, 
26 Am. P. 550; also in 75 K Y. 330; and 
in 77 Id. 036, latter being without opinion. 
See Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co. ; 
Reynolds v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co. 
Decision in 64 N. Y. followed (Duty of 
railroad company to give signals at crossing) 
in Byrne v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 
94 Id. 12. Decision in 70 A". Y. cited 
in Thomas v. Delaware, &c. R. R. Co., U. 
S. Cir. Ct., JSf. D. N. Y., 12 Reporter, 730; 
s. c, 8 Fed. Rep. 729. Decision in 75 K Y. 
explained and followed (Contributory negli- 
gence) in Glendening v. Sharp, 22 Hun, 
78. Followed in Kenncy v. N. Y. & Man- 
hattan Beach R. R. Co., 13 Weekly Dig. 01. 
Explained in Urquhart v. City of Ogdens- 
burgh, 23 Hun, 75. Decision in 70 N. Y. 
quoted (Nuisance — injuries caused by) in 
Moak's UiiderMWs Torts, 1 Am. ed. 263. 

Corey v. Buffalo, &c. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 
482. See Radcliff v. Mayor, &c. of Brook- 
lyn. Overruled (Effect of dedication) in 
Williams v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 16 
N~. Y. 97. 

v. Long, 35 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 569. 

Afl'd in 53 F. Y. 641. 

Corlies v. Cunnning, 6 Cow. 181. Disting'd 
(Sale by factor for another than his princi- 
pal) in Roosevelt v. Doherty, 129 Mass. 301 ; 
s. c, 37 Am. R. 356. Cited in Wfiart. 
Com. on Ag. § 764. 

v. Gardner, 2 Hall, 345. See Wilson v. 

Force. Disting'd and critically considered 
(Effect of refusal of purchaser to give secur- 
ity agreed upon) in Bradford v. Marbury, 12 
Ala. 520; s. c, 46 Am. Dec. 264, 266, with 
note. 

Cormier v. Batty, 41 Super. Ct. {J. & S.) 70. 
Further decision in 42 Id. 423. 

Com Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 8 Abb. 
Pr. H. S. 246. Rev'd in 9 Id. 156 ; 
s. c, less fully, 42 N. Y. 613 ; 1 Am. 
R. 601. See Barnett v. Lichtenstein ; 
Freckiug «. Rolland; Jaques v. Methodist 
Episc. Church; Perkins®. Perkins; Yale v. 
Dederer. Decision in 42 N. Y. followed 
(Charge on separate estate .of married 
woman) in Merchants' Bk. v. Scott, 59 Barb. 
643 ; Todd v. Ames, 00 Id. 462 ; Kidd v. 
Conway, 65 Id. 160; Conlin v. Cantrell, 51 
How. Pr. 313; Hierr. Staples, 51 N~. Y. 139. 
Followed as established law, in Maxon v. 
Scott, bold. 251; Woplsey «. Brown, lild. 
84, which aff'd 11 Hun, 53, which see. 
.Disting'd in Bogert i>. Gulick, 45 How. Pr. 
300. Applied in Williamson v. Dodge, 5 
Hun, 497 ; Eustaphieve v. Ketchum, 6 Id. 
623. Disapproved in Dcering v. Boyle, 8 
Kan. 525 ; s. c, 12 Am. li. 482. Explained 
in Schouler on Dom. Rel. 3 ed. § 145, n. 1. 
Disting'd (Necessity of averment of exist- 
ence of separate estate) in Schlesiuger v. 
llexter, 34 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 504. 



182 



COENELIUS— COENING. 



Cornelius t. Van Slyck, 21 Wen/l 70. 
Cited as authority (Words "you will steal," 
whether actionable) in Townshendon Slander 
and Libel, 2 ed. 192. Disting'd iu Bays v. 
Hunt, 60 Iowa, 254. 

Cornell t. Barnes. See Earl v. Camp ; 
Warner v. Shed. 

v. Cook, 7 Cow. 310. Opposed (Officer's 

return on execution as presumptive evi- 
dence in his favor) in Merrill v. Sawvcr, 8 
Pick. (Mans.) 397. 

y. Dakin, 38 N. Y. 253. See People 

ex rel. Knapp v. Reeder. Disting'd (Re- 
ceiptor of property from sheriff, when estop- 
ped) in Clark v. Weaver, 17 Bun, 481, 486. 

— «— v. Masten, 35 Barb. 157. See (Composi- 
tion — joint debtors) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 1942, n. 

v. Monlton, 3 Den. 12. Cited with 

Commercial Bank v. Ives, 2 BUI, 355 ; 
Judd v. Fulton, 10 Barb. 118, as accord- 
ing with the weight of authority (Computa- 
tion of time from act done) in Warren v. 
Slade, 23 Mich. 1 ; s. c, 9 Am. R. 70, 74. 
Followed and cited with Osborn v. Moncure, 
3 Wend. 170; Salt Springs Nat. B'k t>. 
Burton, 58 iV~. T. 430 ; in Blackman v. 
Nutting, 43 Conn. 56; s. c, 21 Am. R. 634. 

v. Potter, 15 How. Pr. 278. Opposed 

(Party not entitled to witness fees) iu Bron- 
ner v. Frauenthal, 12 Abb. Pr. 183. Com- 
pare Dunham v. Sherman, 1 1 Id. 152 ; and 
see Steere v. Miller, 30 Bow. Pr. 7. 

y. Prescott, 2 Barb. 10. Explained 

(Assumption of mortgage) in Stebbins v. 
Hall, 29 Id. 530; Gamsey ' 1>. Rogers, 47 K 
Y. 230. 

Cornes v. Wilkin, 14 Bun, 428. Aff'd in 79 
N. T. 129. Decision in 14 Ban followed 
(Contribution against • estate of deceased 
surety) in Johnston v. Harvey, 22 Id. 460. 

Corning v. Corning, 6 N. Y. 97. Aff'g 1 
CodeR N. 8. 351. See Conklin v. Thomp- 
son^ Decision in 6 N. Y. relied on (Evi- 
dence of dissolute conduct to mitigate dam- 
ages) in dissenting opinion of JonNsoN, J., 
in Crossman v. Bradley, 53 Barb. 137. Ap- 
plied (Amendment of complaint after ver- 
dict by increasing damages) to amendment 
after confirmation of referee's report, — in 
Bowman «. Earle, 8 Dner, 695. Applied to 
action tried before judge, in Decker v. Par- 
sons, 11 Bun, 295. Disting'd in Barth v. 
Walther, 4 Duer, 228 ; Poillon e. Volken- 
ning, 11 Bun, 388. Cited as authority in 
Coulter «. Am. Merchants' &c. Expies= Co,, 
5 Lans. 67. Disting'd as not applicable to 
amendments before verdict, — in Knapp v. 
Roche, 37 Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 406. Pol- 
lowed in Elting v. Campbell, 5 Blatclif. 
C. Ct. 183. Disting'd (Rejecting evidence 
offered on immaterial issue) in White v. 
Spencer, 14 N. Y. 251. 

v. Gould, 16 Wand. 631. Applied (Evi- 
dence of intent to abandon easement) in 
Grain v. Fox, 16 Barb. 187. Disting'd in 
Pope v. O'liara, 48 K Y. 455; White's Bk. 
of Buffalo v. Nichols, 64 Id. 74. Cited in 3 



Bent Com. 448, n. o, as containing a full 
and learned view of the law. Commented 
upon in 3 Washb. on Real Prop. 4 ed. 61. 

v. Greene, 23 Barb. 33. Said in 26 K Y. 

472, v., to have been aff d in Ct. of App. 
Decision in 23 Barb, followed (Statute to 
be void unless corporation consent, not a 
delegation of legislative power) in Currier v. 
West Side Elev. Pat. R'y. Co. of N. Y., 6 
Blatclif. C. Ct. 487, 494. See (Actions by 
or against associations) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 1919, n. 

v. Lewis, 54 Barb. 51; s. c, with ref- 
eree's opinion, 36 Bow. Pr. 425. 

v. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Oh. 439. Ap- 
proved with Hills ». Miller, 3 Paige, 254; 
Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Id. 510 
(Injunction) in Greeri v. Oakes, 17 III. 251. 
Relied on (Injunction of nuisance) in Hamil- 
ton v. Whitridge, 11 Md. 128; s. c, 48 Am. 
R. 274, n. Approved and applied in City 
of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 
Pet. 99. 

— v. McCulIongh, 1 K Y. 47; s. c, 49 Am. 
Dec. 287, with note. Subsequent decision in 
4 Bow. Pr. 183. See Harger a. McCuilough. 
Decision in 1 2f. Y. explained (Nature of 
stockholder's liability) in Walker v. Crain, 
17 Barb. 129 ; Abbott v. Aspinwall, 26 Id. 
207. Approved and followed in Conant «. 
Van Schaick. 24 Id. 96 ; Bird v. Hayden, 
1 Robt. 388. Re-affd in Moss v. Averell, 10 
JST. Y. 459 ; Story v. Furman, 25 Id. 222. 
Applied in Strong v. Wheaton, 38 Barb. 625; 
Pfohl v. Simpson, 50 Bow. Pr.SIS; Clark 
v. Myers, ] 1 Bun, 609. Approved in Hawt- 
horne i>. Calef, 2 Wall. 10. Disting'd in 
Merchants' B'k v. Bliss, 35 N.Y. 414, which 
aff'd 1 Robt. 401, where Corning v. McCui- 
lough is said to have overruled Freeland v. 
Mcuullough, 1 Den. 414; Van Hook •». Whit- 
lock, 3 Paige, 409. Disting'd in Jessup v. Car- 
negie, 80 N~. Y. 457; Halsey v. McLean, 12 
Allen {Mass.) 441. Disting'd with Allen v. 
Sewall, 2 Wend. 338 ; Moss v. Oakley, 2 Bill, 
265 ; Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Id. 188; Harger v. 
McCuilough, 2 Den. 119 ; Ex parte Van 
Riper, 20 Wend. 614, and cited with Garri- 
son v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 458; Andrews '«. 
Murray, 33 Barb. 354 ; Shalcr & Hall Quarry 
Co. v. Bliss, 34 Id. 309 ; Boughton v. Otis, 
21 K Y. 261 ; Squire v. Brown, 22 Bow. Pr. 
45, in First Nat. B'k of Plymouth v. Price, 
33 Md. 487; s. c, 3 Am. R. 204. Compared 
with other cases, in Conklin v. Furman, 57 
Barb. 487 ; Belmont v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 
200. Compare Chase o. Lord, 6 Abb. N. C. 
258, and note. Cited as authority in 
Cuvkenrlall v. Miles, II. S. Cir.. Ct. D. 
Mass. 10 Fed. Rep. 342; s. c, 14 Reporter, 
69. Disapproved in Lowry v. Inman, 2 
Sweeny, 117, 148. Explained in Morawctz 
on Corp. § 609. Explained and approved 
in Wade on Retroactive Laws, § 142. Ex- 
plained (Statute of limitations — what 
actions may be barred) in Aug. on Limit. 
§ 70, n. 1 , (i ed. Discussed (Specialties) in 
Id. § 80, n. 1. Applied (Application of 



CORNING— CORTELYOU. 



183 



maxim "nosr.itur a sociis'") in McGaffin 
v. City of Cohoes, 74 N. Y. 389. 

v. Murray, 3 Barb. 652. Criticised (As- 
signment of chose in action— subject to what 
equities) in Greene v. Warwick, 64 N. Y. 
220, 224. 

v Slosson, 1,6 if. Y. 294. Approved 

(Consultation necessary to decision by 
court) in Parrott v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 
8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 234, 244. Explained in 
Shaw v. People, 5 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 439, 
448. 

v. Smith, 6 K Y. 82. Explained (Prior 

mortgagee as party to foreclosure suit) in 
Walsh v. Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 13 Abb. 
Pr. 33, 39. Applied in Banning v. Brad- 
ford, 21 Minn. 308; s. c, 18 Am. It. 398, 
to case of one holding adversely to mort- 
gagor. 

v. Southland, 3 Hill, 552. Explained 

and disting'd (Discharge of sheriffs liability 
for failure to return execution) in McKinley 
». Tucker, 59 Barb. 93, which was overruled 
in 6 Lans. 216, which see. Applied (Sheriffs 
liability for acts of deputy) in Sheldon «. 
Payne, 7 N. Y. 458; 10 Id. 401. 

v. Stebbins, 1 Barb. Gh. 589. Cited as 

authority (Time within which to fill credi- 
tor's bill) in Walker v. Donovan, 6 Daly, 
552. 

v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory, 6 How. 

Pr. 89; s. c.. 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 7. Injunc- 
tion suit reported in 34 Barb. 485 ; s. c, 22 
How. Pr. 217. Case under same name in 34 
Barb. 529; s. c:, 22 How. Pr. 212; is eject- 
ment suit between same parties. Subse- 
quent decision in injunction suit, — in 39 
Barb. 311, which was aff'd in 40 N. Y. 191. 
See Garwood v. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. 
Co. Decision in 40 N. Y. applied (Injunc- 
tion to restore rights in running water) in 
Pollitt v. Long, 58 Barb. 34; Foot v. Bran- 
son, 4 Lans. 52. Explained in Clinton v. 
Myers, 46 jV. Y. 511, 521. Quoted and 
explained in 1 High on lnj. 2 ed. § 804, 
n. 1. Cited as authority (Grant of real 
estate, title to which is in dispute) in Allen 
0, Welch, 18 Hun, 227. Applied (Use of 
word "reservation " in deed) in Saunders v. 
Hanes, 44 N. Y. 361. Applied (Right to 
relief as affected by form of action) in 
Wright 11. Wright, 54 Id. 443; Broiestedt 
v. South Side R. R. Co., 55 Id. 220 ; 
Henderson v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 
Id. 436. Compare (Judgment requiring 
defendant to remove nuisance) De Laney v. 
Blizzard, 7 Hun, 68. Explained and limited 
(Mandatory injunction) in Slocum v. Chi- 
cago, <fcc. R, R. Co., 11 Nortkw. Rep. 641. 

Cornish t. Farm Buildings Fire Ius. Co., 
10 Hun, 466. Aff'd in 74 K Y. 295. 

Cornvrell v. Deck, 2 Red/. 87. Aff'd in part, 
in 8 Hun, 122. 

v. Lovett, 1 Hall, 56. Aft'd in 6 Wend. 

369. 

- — y. Woolley, 47 Barb. 327. Aff'd in 2 
Transc. App. 380; s. c, 1 Abb. Ot. App. 
Dec. 441 ; 43 How. Pr. 475. Decision in 43 



Haw. Pr. followed (Proof of execution of 
will) in Williamson v. Williamson, 2 Red/. 
449, 452. 

Corp v. Brown, 2 Sandf. 293. Followed 
(Brokerage) in Cook v. Phillips, 56 N. Y. 
310, 314. 

v. McComb. See Osborn v. Moncure. 

Corporation of N. Y. v. Dover Street, 18 
Johns. 506. Applied (Discontinuance of 
proceedings to acquire title to land) in 
Matter of Washington Park, 56 N. Y. 144, 
154. 

v. Mapes, 6 Johns. Ch. 46. Applied 

(Discontinuance of proceedings to acquire 
title to land) in Matter of Washington Park,. 
56 K Y. 144, 155. 

Corporation of P. & F. Corbin v. Gordon. 
See Corbin, Corporation of, v. Gordon. 

Corse v. Leggett, 25 Barb. 389. Quoted. 
(Trust — how far writing necessary to create 
under statute of frauds) in 1 Perry on Trusts, 
3 ed. § 81. 

Corson v. Ball, 47 Barb. 452. Explained 
(Attachment in action for recovery of money) 
in Code Giv. Pro. 1881, ch. VII tit. III. 
art. 1, n. 

Cortelyou v. Lansing, 2 Cai. Gas. 200; s. c, 
2 XT. Y. Com. L. Law. ed. 802, with brief 
note; 7 Am. Dec. 296, n. Said by Kent, J., 
in Barrow v. Paxton, 5 Johns. 260, never to 
have been actually rendered, but is subse- 
quently cited by him in the Commentaries 
without any such reservation. Approv- 
ingly cited in Pars, on Gontr. 594, n. a. 
Applied (TenderJjy pledgor excused by sale 
by pledgee) in Lewis v. Graham, 4 Abb. Pr. 
1 14. Compare Wilson v. Little, 1 Sandf. 358. 
Explained (Damages in conversion, &c.) in 
Wilson v. Mathews, 24 Barb. 297. Re-affd 
and applied in Romaine v. Van Allen, 26 
N. Y. 311. Applied in Booth v. Powers, 56 
Id. 27 ; Clark v. Pinney, 7 Cow. 694. 
Followed in West v. Wentworth, 3 Oow. 
83. Explained at length in Baker v. Drake, 
53 K Y. 220, Disting'd in Page ». Fowler, 
39 Cal. 412; s. c, 2 Am. R. 462, 467. Dis- 
approved in Sturgis ». Keith, 57 111. 451 ; 
s. c, 11 Am. E. 33. Followed-, and Mark- 
ham v. Jaudon, 41 JV. Y. 235 ; - Baker v. 
Drake, 53 Id. 211; Grurnan v. Smith, 81 
Id. 25, disting'd (Measure of damages on 
unauthorized sale by pledgee) in Hopper v. 
Smith, 63 Bow. Pr. 34. Applied (Title of 
mortgagee of chattels (in Stoddard v. Deni- 
son, 7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 314. Disting'd in 
Brown ». Bement, 8 Johns. 97. Cited as 
authority (Limitation on authority of pledgee 
to sell) in Wheeler v. Newbould, 5 l)uer, 
36; Stearns v. Marsh, 4 Hen. 230. Followed 
in Garlick v. James, 12 Johns. 149. Applied 
(Distinction between pledge and mortgage) 
in McLean v. Walker, 10 Id. 474; McFar- 
land v. Wheoler, 26 Wend. 475. Relied on 
in Lucketts o. Townsend, 3 Tex. 119; s. c, 
49 Am. Dee.' 723, with note. Discussed and 
cited in 2 Pars, on Contr. 112, n. a. 

v. Van Brundt, 2 Johns. 356; s. c, 30 

Am. Dec. 439. Applied (Prescription as 



184 



COTCWIN— COSTER. 



foundation of right) in Pearsall v. Post, 

20 Wend. 128, which was affd in 22 Id. 
425, which see ; Ferris v. Brown, 3 Barb. 
109. Applied in Littletteld v. Maxwell, 31 
Me. 134 ; s. c, 50 Am. Dec. 653, 656. Fol- 
lowed (Extent of grant of lands bounded on 
tide-water) in Hagan v. Campbell, 8 Port. 
{Ala.) 9; s. c, 33 Am. Dec. 267, 270, with 
note. Applied (Ownership of fee of high- 
way) in Gidney «. Earl, 12 Wend. 99. 

Corwin, Matter of,. 14 Hun, 34. Another 

proceeding in 6 Alb. N. ft 437. 
v. Corwin, 9 Barb. 219. Eev'd in 6 

N. Y. 342. 

v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 222. See Wolfe v. 

Goulard. Disting'd (Assignment of trade- 
mark) in Hegeman v. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 
1,8. 

T. Freeland, 6 How. Pr. 241. Rev'd in 

6 K Y. 560. See Elwood v. Gardner. 
Decision in 6 N'. T. explained and limited 
(Arrest on ca. sa. issued after judgment) in 
Smith v. Knanp. 30 Id. 581. Explained 
in Molenaer v. Koerner, 13 Abb. Pr. 242, n. 
Explained (Partial trial of cause, on motion 
to vacate order of arrest) in Frost v. Mc- 
Carger, 14 How. Pr. 131, disapproving Her- 
nandez v. Carnobeli, 10 Id. 433, and Repub- 
lic of Mexico v. Arrangois, Id. 1. Explained 
in Barret v. Grade, 34 Barb. 20, 25. 

v. Merritt, 3 Barb. 341. Followed 

(Jurisdiction of surrogate's courts) in Sav- 
age o. Olmstead, 2 Bed/. 475, 481 ; People 
ex rel. Meyer v. Hartman, 2 Sweeny, 576. 
Criticised in Waples on Proc. in Rem 
§577. 

v. N. T. & Erie R. R. Co., 13 H, Y. 42. 

See Cook v. Champlain Transp. Co. Ap- 
plied (Application of law requiring railroad 
companies to construct* fences) in Staats v. 
Hudson River R. R. Co., 4 Abb. Gt. App. 
Dec. 292 ; Tallman v. Syracuse, &c. R. R. 
Co., Id. 352 ; McDowell ». N. Y. Central R. 
R. Co., 37 Barb. 198; Duffy v. N. Y. & 
Harlem R. R. Co., 2 Hilt. 498; Brady v. 
Renss. & Saratoga R. R. Co., 1 Bun, 380; 
Crawford e. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 
18 Hun, 109. Applied to case of village 
streets, in Brace v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 
27 N~. Y. 275. Applied to foreign corpora- 
tion, in Purdy v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. 
Co., 61 Id. 355. Explained as resting on 
special provision of N. Y. statute, in Pitts- 
burgh, Fort Wayne,&c. R. R. Co. v. Methven, 

21 Ohio St. 586. Collated with other cases, 
in 1 7'homps. on Negl. 530. Collated with 
Munch «. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 Barb. 
647, and other cases, in 7 Am. B. 47. 
Compared with Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y. & 
Erie R. R Co., 35 K Y. 641; Bradley «. 
Same, 34 Id. 427, and N. Y. statutes (Lia- 
bility of railroad corporations for injury 
to live stock) in Burlington & M. R. R. Co. 
■o. Brinckman, 15 Northw. Rep. 201. Dis- 
ting'd (Contributory negligence as defense 
to action against railroad company) in Das- 
comb v. Buffalo & State Line R. R. Co., 27 
Barb. 228 ; Bowman «. Troy & Boston R. R. 



Co., 37 Id. 518; Sheaf «. TTtica, &c. R. R. 
Co., 2 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & G) 388. Applied 
in Munch v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 29 
Barb. 649. Followed in Rhodes a. (Jtica, 
&c. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 344 ; Shepard v. Buf- 
falo, N. Y., &c. R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 645. 

Cory v. Leonard, 1 Sup'm. Ot. (T. & C.) 183. 
Aff'd in 56 N. Y. 494. 

Cosgrove v. N. Y. Central. Ac. R. R. Co., 13 
Hun, 329. Subsequent decision in 87 N. Y. 
88. Decision in 13 Bun explained as put 
on the ground that defendant's negligence 
did not contribute (Contributory negligence) 
in Masterson «. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. 
Co.,84iV. F. 247, 254. 

v. Ogden, 49 N. Y. 255. See Higgins v. 

Watervliet Turnpike Co. Applied (Question 
of negligence of parent of injured child — 
when for jury) in Mullaney v. Spence, 15 
Abb. Pr. N. S. 329. Collated with other 
cases, in 6 Abb.N. O. 104, 114, n. ; 2 Thomps. 
on Negl. 1188. Applied (Test of master's 
responsibility for wrongful act of servant) in 
Peck «. N. Y. Central, &c. R. R. Co., 8 Hun, 
287; Hughes v. N. Y. & New Haven R. R. 
Co., 36 Super. Gt. (J.&S.)W,5; Maximilian 
a. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Hun, 263, 268. 

Costello v. Male, 1 Hun, 489. Fully reported 
in 3 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & O.) 493. Appeal 
said in 3 Hun, and 5 Sup'm. Gt. (T. & C.) 
3, to have been dismissed. 

v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 65 

Bar b. 92. Appeal dismissed, it seems, in 55 
N. Y. 641, but without opinion. See other 
cases collected (Contributory negligence of 
child) in 6 Abb. N. G. 104, 109, n. 

Coster, Ex parte, 2 Johns. Oh. 503. Cited 
and disting'd (Substitution of one taking up 
bond and mortgage, in the place of mort- 
gagee) in Garwood v. Eldridge, 1 Green Oh. 
(K J.) 145; s. c, 34 Am. Dec. .195, 198, 
with note. 

Coster v. Clarke, 3 Edw. 405. Aff'd in 2 Ck 
Sent. 38. 

t. Griswold, 4 Edw. 364. Discussed 

with Chance «. Isaacs, 5 Paige, 592 ; Beck- 
with ®. Union Bank, 9 N. Y. 211; Gay v. 
Gay, 10 Paige. 369; Hackett v. Connett, 

. 2 Edw. 73 '; Roberts v. Carter, 38 K 7. 
107 ; Spencer v. Barber, 5 Hill, 568 ; Cham- 
berlin v. Day, 3 Cow. 353; Graves!). Wood- 
bury, 4 Hill, 559 (Right of judgment debtor 
to have judgment set off) in Terney v. 
Wilson, 16 Vroom (45 N. J. L.) 282, 287. 
Cited (As between State and U. S. courts, 
neither can enjoin process of the other) in 
Chapin v. James, 11 i?. /. 86; s. c, 23 
Am. B. 412. 

v. Lorillard, 14 Wend. 265. Rev'g 

Lorillard v. Coster, 5 Paige, 172. See Hone 
v. Van Schaick. Decision in 14 Wend, fol- 
lowed with Hawley ». James, 16 Id. 61 
(Suspension of power of alienation — appli- 
cation of 1 R. S. 723, § 14) in Amory v. 
Lord, 9 K Y. 403. Discussed in 4 Kent 
Com. 272, n. c. Explained and disting'd 
(Validity of trust where beneficiary has con- 
trol of income) in Wetmore v. Truslow, 51 



COSTER— COUGIILIN. 



185 



If. T. G38s 343. Commented on (Trusts to 
receive rents and proiits and pay over) iu 
4 Kent Com. 310, n. c. ; Id. C03. 

. v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 52 Barb. 270. 

Rev'd in 43 2f. 7. 39!). See Bellinger v. 
N. Y. Central R. R. Co. ; Milhau c. Sharp ; 
People v. Mayor, &c. of Albany. Decision in 
43 If. T. applied (Rights of abutting owners) 
in Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated 
R. Co., 3 Abb. A r . C. 390; Story v. N. Y. 
Elevated R. R. Co., Id. 507; Fearing v. 
Irwin, 55 If. Y. 490. See also (Jurisdiction 
against State) People v. Dcnison, 8 Abbi N. 
0. 128. Examined, with other cases (Prom- 
ise to pay demand of third person) in dis- 
senting opinion of Eaul, J., in Dunning v. 
Leavitt, 85 If. Y. 30, 39. Followed in 
People v. Mayor, &c. of Albany, 53 Id. 029, 
which affd 5 - Lans. 524, 531, which see. 

v. Murray, 7 Johns. Cli. 107. Aif d in 

4 Cow. 017. Another decision iu 5 Johns. 
Oh. 522 ; affd in 20 Johns. 570. See Ue- 
cou:he v. Saveticr; Kane v, Bloodgood. 
Decision in 5 Johns. C/i. denied (Applica- 
tion of statute of limitations to mutual ac- 
counts) in McClelland v. Crofton, Greenl. 
[Ma.) 343. Decision in 20 Johns, explained 
by Spencek, Senator, in Renss. Glass Fac- 
tory v. Reed, 5 Cow. 010. Discussed in Ang. 
on Limit. §§ 149, 150, 167, G ed. 

v. N. Y. & Erie II. R. Co., Duer, 43; 

s. c, more fully, 3 Abb. Pi: 332. 

v. Peters, 5 Robt. 192-202. Discussed 

(Ejectment — when it lies — interest in vaults) 
in Sedgw. & W. on Tr. of Tit. to Land, 
§ 107. 

v. Watson, 15 Johns. 535. Approved 

(Attorney as bail) in Miles v. Clarke, 4 Bosw. 
632, 034. 
Costigan v. Gould, 5 Den. 290. Cited among 
cases from other jurisdictions (Presumption 
as to correctness of dates found in written 
instruments) in 29 Alb. L. J. 227. 
Costigan v. Mohawk & Hudson 11. R. Co., 2 
Den. 009 ; s. c, 43 Am. Ike. 758, with note. 
Disting'd (Damages recoverable by dis- 
charged employee) in Durkee ». Molt, 8 
Barb. 425. Disting'd iu Holmes v. Davis, 
19 If. Y. 494, a case of an ousted tenant. 
Applied in Gillis o. Space, 03 Barb. 182; 
Thompson «. Wood, 1 Hilt. 97. Cited as 
authority iu Howard v. Daly, 61 If. Y. 371. 
Approved in Oldham v. Kerchnor, 79 if. C. 
100 ; s. c, 28 Am. li. 308, with note collat- 
ing cases. Explained in 2 Chitty on Contr. 
840, n. h, 11 Am. ed. Quoted in 2 Greenl. 
on Ev. 14 ed. § 2G1, a, n. 2. Applied with 
Hamilton v. McPherson, 28 If. Y. 72 (Burden 
of proof as to damages, on party guilty of 
breach of contract) in Dunn v. Johnson, 33 
Ind. 54 ; s. c, 5 Am. R. 177, 183. Quoted 
(Penalties and liquidated damages) in 2 
Story on Contr. 5 ed. § 1478, n. 3. Applied 
(Novelty of defense as argument against, it) 
in Ryan a N. Y. Central R. 11. Co., 35 N. Y 
216. 
Dotes v. Carroll, 28 How. Pr. 440. Dis- 
ting'd (Procedure on appeal from judgment 



determining rights of defendants as between 
themselves) in Morrison v. ilcrrison, 10 
Hun, 507. 
Cotlieal t. Brouwer, 5 If. Y. 562. Ali'g 
Brouwer i: Cotheal, 10 Barb. 210, and that 
affg Cothealj). Brower, 5 If. Y. Leg. O'os. 
175. 

v. Talmadg-e, 1 E. D. Smith, 573. AfTd 

in 9 N. Y. 551. See Baglcy v. Peddio. 
Decision in 9 If. Y. approved (Liquidated 
damages and penalty) in Clement o. Cash, 
21 Id. 253, 250, 2)9. Followed in Staples 
v. Parker, 41 Barb. 048; Kemp v. Knicker- 
bocker Ice Co., 51 Horn. Pi: 31, which was 
rev'd in 09 N. Y. 45, 59, which see. Dis- 
ting'd in Salters o. Ralph, 15 Abb. Pi: 275; 
Colwcll v. Lawrence, 38 Barb. 047, which 
wa3 affd in 38 A T . Y. 74, which see. 

v. Mechanics' Bank. See Mechanics' 

Bank v. Edwards. 
Cott v. Lewislon R R. Co , 30 If. Y. 214. 
Quoted and discussed (Nuisance, — changing 
bed of natural stream) iu Wood on Nuis.2. 
ed. § 400. 
Cottle v. Vanderhcyden, 5G Barb. 022; s. c, 
39 How. Pr. 289. Affd in 11 Abb. Pr. N. 
8. 17. 
Cotton v. Maurer, 1 Sup'm. Ct. (T. & C.) 
481. Further decision in 5 Id. 575 ; mem. 
s. c, 3 Han, 552. 
Couch v. Ash, 5 Cow. 265. See Scouton ■». 
Eislord. Compare with this and Hubert v. 
Williams, Cow. 537 (Debt due by insol- 
vent as sufficient consideration for new 
promise) Earnest e. Parke, 4 Uawle, 452 ; 
Scouton t. Ehlord, 7 Johns. 30 ; Siiippey v. 
Henderson, 14 Id. 178. 

v. Delaplaiu.3, 2 A 7 . 7. 397. See (Sale 

of real property — restitution for assets 
subsequently discorered) Code Civ. Pro. 
1881, § 2801, v. Explained" (Assignment 
for benefit of creditors — what property pas- 
ses under) in Burrill on Assign. § U1Z. 
4 ed. 
v. Mills, 21 Wend. 424. See (Composi- 
tion by joint debtors) Code Civ. Pro. 1881, 
§ 1942, n. 
Conghlin v. N. Y. Central, £c. R. R. Co., 
8 Hun, 136. Rev'd in 71 If. Y. 443; s. 
c, 27 Am. P. 75. See Pulvcr v. Harris. 
Decision in 71 If. Y. approved (Attor- 
ney's lion and client's power "to settle action 
for unliquidated damages) in Swanston 
v. Morning Star Mining Co., U. S. Cir. Ct, 
D. Col., 14 lie-porter, 321; s. c. 13 Fed. 
Rep. 215; Hooper v. Welch, 43 ' Ft 109. 
Followed (Attorney's lieu in Lasc of non- 
assignable action) and Shank v. Shoemaker, 
18 If. Y. 489; Pulvcr v. Harris, G2 Barb. 
500, approved, in Kustercr v. City of Beaver 
Dam, 50 Wis. 471 ; s. c, 43 Am. Dec. 725. 
Decision in 8 Hun disting'd in "Walsh %. 
Platbush, N. Shore, &c. li. R. Co., 11 Id. 
190. Decision in 71 If. Y. cited as author- 
ity (Basis of attorney's lien) in Matter of 
Knapp, 85 If. Y. 284, 294. See Code Civ. 
Pro. § 06, as am'd in 1879. Cited, with 
other cases (Contingent fees) in 24 Alb. 



186 



COUGIITEY— COVE^EOVEK 



L. J. 10. Compared with other cases 
(Champerty) in 19 Alb. L. J. 408. See 
(Judgment, when a