Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Negligence of Employer.

C., 6 Barb., 231; 1853, Keegan v. Western R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. (4 Seld.), 175; 1858 [citing, also, 6 Cush., 75; 9 Id., 113; 10 Id., 228; 5 Exch., 354; 9 Id., 223; 11 Id., 832; 37 Eng. L. & Eq., 281; 16 Adolph. & E., N. S., 326; 1 Hurl. & Norm. Exch., 773], Sherman v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. (3 Smith), 153.

19. Hence, a laborer employed by a railroad company to work in connection with a train of cars, under an arrangement by which he is to be conveyed to his home every night in such, free of charge, cannot maintain an action against the company for an injury sustained while thus riding home, in consequence of the negligence of the engineer. Ct. of Appeals, 1858, Russell v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. (3 Smith), 134.

20. Negligence of employer. It is the duty of the master, to all his servants, to use reasonable care in providing them with careful and competent fellow-servants; and he is liable for injuries to any servant arising from his neglect to use such care, in the absence of proof that the injured servant was aware of the incompetency of his fellow-servant. Where the master is a corporation, the liability is not affected by the fact that it acted by an agent in the selection of servants, and such agent was negligent in the selection. Supreme Ct., 1858, Wright . N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 28 Barb., 80.

Injury to Servant.

servant who sustains an injury from the negligence of a superior agent engaged in the same general business, can maintain no action against their common employer, although he was subject to the control of such superior agent, and could not guard against his negligence or its consequences. The same rule of liability must necessarily apply as well where the employments of the servants are distinct, as to cases where they are one; and to the several grades of employments, where those in the inferior are subject to the direction and control of those in the higher grades, as to cases where all occupy a common footing and possess equal authority. Ct. of Appeals, 1858, Sherman v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. (3 Smith), 153.

23. Separate employers. The rule applies only where the action is brought for an injury to a servant or agent against the principal by whom such servant was himself employed. A servant employed by a railroad company on a portion of its track upon which it permits another company to run trains, is not a servant of the latter company; and a servant of the latter, injured by the negligence of such servant of the former, may maintain an action against the former company. Ct. of Appeals, 1859, Smith v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 19 N. Y. (5 Smith), 127.

24. Lessee of ferry. Defendant had an exclusive right to run a ferry, and permitted another person to exercise the right, not as the defendant's agent or servant, or for his benefit, but on his own account. Held, that defendant was not liable for injuries owing to the negligence and want of skill of the latter or his servants. Supreme Ct., Sp. T., 1855, Blackwell v. Wiswall, 24 Barb., 355; affirmed, Gen. T., 1857.

21. The rule that the principal or master is not liable to his agent or servant for an injury inflicted through the negligence of another servant employed in the same general business, applies only where the injury happened without any actual fault of the principal or master, either in the act which caused the injury, or in the selection and employment of the agent by whose fault it happens. Where the fire- 25. Liability of servant. One hired to man on a locomotive was injured by the ex-drive horses is not liable for an injury to them, plosion of the boiler, which was defective and unless it be shown that the injury was prodangerous,—Held, that the railroad corpora- duced by his unskilfulness, negligence, or wiltion was liable for the injury, if it knew the ful misconduct. He is in as favorable position condition of the boiler, it not being shown as a bailee for hire. Supreme Ct., 1823, New

ton v. Pope, 1 Cow., 109.

that its condition was known to the plaintiff also. Ct. of Appeals, 1853, Keegan v. Western 26. Master's action for injury to servant. R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. (4 Seld.), 175. Supreme The rule that for a wrongful injury to the serCt., 1855, McMillan v. Saratoga & Washington vant whereby he is disabled from continuing R. R. Co., 20 Barb., 449. To the contrary his service the master may recover from the effect, 1857, Byron v. N. Y. State Printing wrongdoer [following 3 Blackst. Com., 142, Telegraph Co., 26 Barb., 39. and disapproving Reeve, 376], applies to the

22. Several grades of employment. A case of a hired servant or clerk. It is not

Masters in Chancery.

confined to the case of apprentices and children, and cases where the master stands in loco parentis. Supreme Ct., 1846, Woodward v. Washburn, 3 Den., 369.

27. Recovery by a merchant for the confinement of his hired clerk for a short time, in a a bank, sustained. Ib.

Maxims.

an affidavit. Chancery, 1831, People v. Spalding, 2 Paige, 326.

4. The approval of an appeal-bond calls for the exercise of both judgment and discretion; and a master cannot, as such, approve such a bond in a cause where he, or his law partner, though not employed as solicitor or counsel on

28. Enticing servant. A master can main-record, has been called on for advice, or drawn tain an action of trespass against another for papers. Chancery, 1836, McLaren v. Charrier, entering his house, and there enticing away 5 Paige, 530. his servant. The gravamen of the action is the trespass, and the enticement is matter of aggravation. Supreme Ct., 1853, Haight v. Badgeley, 15 Barb., 499.

29. Abandoning service. A servant who was hired for a half month, left at the end of ten days, on account of improper language used to him by the master, on his refusal to work on Sunday. Held, that he could recover nothing. Supreme Ct., 1828, Marsh o. Rulesson, 1 Wend., 514.

30. Settlement. Though on an entire contract for services for one year, settlements to be made every three or four months, there could be no recovery till the end of the year;* yet where, on a settlement during the year, the employer gives the servant a note for the wages so far earned, the note is a modification of the contract, and is binding, though the servant leaves him before the time expires, and without cause. Supreme Ct., 1816, Thorpe v. White, 13 Johns., 53.

31. Newspaper carrier. That the relation of master and servant does not exist between the proprietor of a newspaper and the carriers, such as to require a month's notice to terminate it. Ct. of Appeals, 1854, Hathaway v. Bennett, 10 N. Y. (6 Seld.), 108.

MASTERS IN CHANCERY.

1. Office of, and provisions of law relating to. 1 Rev. Stat., 3 ed., 97, 109; 2 Id., 381, 382.

2. Office abolished with Court of Chancery. Const. of 1846, art xiv., § 6.

3. Powers. The provisions of the statute prohibiting masters from acting as such, in causes in which they are concerned as solicitor or counsel, do not apply to the mere taking of

5. Judicial sale. Where no sufficient reason appears for employing, to make a judicial sale, a master at a distance from the place, he should not have an extra allowance. Chancery, 1824, Roseboom v. Vedder, Hopk., 228.

6. Where a decretal order furnishes data for a computation, the master ought to follow it; but the defendant cannot object to a departure from it beneficial to himself. V. Chan. Ct., 1843, Townsend v. Low, 4 Edw., 249.

7. Costs. A master is not to be charged with costs of setting aside his acts, on the ground that they were improper or oppressive, without opportunity to be heard. Chancery, 1835, Baring v. Moore, 5 Paige, 48.

MAXIMS.

[The authorities referred to under each maxim given in this table, include both those in which the maxim has been applied, and those in which it has been qualified, or its application limited.]

1. Accessorium non ducit, sed sequitur suum principale. Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johns., 41, 43; Van Wicklain v. Paulson, 14 Barb., 654, 656. Compare infra, 182.

2. Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta. Van Brunt v. Schenck, 11 Johns., 377, 387.

3. Actio personalis moritur cum persona. Franklin v. Low, 1 Johns., 396, 404; People v. Gibbs, 9 Wend., 29, 30; Webber v. Underhill, 19 Id., 447, 449; Osborn v. Bell, 5 Den., 370, 872; Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. (3 Kern.), 322, 333; Green v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 28 Barb., 9, 17; Smith . N. Y. & New Haven R. R. Co., Id.. 605, 608; Hopkins v. Adams, 5 Abbotts' Pr., 351, 352; Norton v. Wiswall, 14 How. Pr., 42, 44; and see Whitford v. Panama R. R. Co., 3 Bosw., 67, 76.. 4. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.

* This rule questioned in Heim v. Wolfe, 1 E. D. People v. Crosswell, 3 Johns. Cas., 337, 364; Smith, 70. Compare CONTRACTS, 832.

Genet v. Mitchell, 7 Johns., 120, 131.

Ad Proximum —.

5. Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio.
Nicoll v. Trustees of Huntington, 1 Johns. Ch.,
166, 183.

Causa proxima —.

tional Protection Ins. Co., 25 Barb., 189, 191.
Compare infra, 18, 215, 216, 222.

18. Any one may, at his pleasure, re-
6. Ad questiones facti non respondent nounce the benefit of a stipulation or other
judices; ad questiones legis non respon- right introduced entirely in his own favor.
dent juratores. Masten v. Deyo, 2 Wend., Conkling v. King, 10 N. Y. (6 Seld.), 440,
424, 427; People v. Crosswell, 3 Johns. Cas., 446. Compare supra, 17; infra, 215, 216,
337, 369; People v. Cook, 8 N. Y. (4 Seld.), 222.
67, 75; and see Besson v. Southard, 10 N. Y.
(6 Seld.), 236.

7. Adulterium non probatur contra alium,
sola mulieris confessione. Betts v. Betts, 1
Johns. Ch., 197, 199.

8. Equitas sequitur legem. Buchan v.
Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch., 165, 182.

19. A penal law is not to be construed
so strictly as to defeat the obvious inten-
tion of the Legislature. Cotheal v. Brouwer,
5 N. Y. (1 Seld.), 562, 567; People v. N. Y.
Central R. R. Co., 25 Barb., 199, 201.

20. Apices juris non sunt jura. Holmes
v. Remsen, 20 Johns., 229, 261.

21. Aqua currit et debet currere. Robin-

9. Alienatio licet prohibeatur, consensu
tamen omnium in quorum favorem prohibi-son v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 27 Barb., 512,
ta est, potest fieri. People v. Van Rensse- 522; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137, 147.
laer, 9 N. Y. (5 Seld.), 291, 335.

10. Aliud est celare, aliud tacere, &c.
Gates v. Madison County Mutual Ins. Co., 5
N. Y. (1 Seld.), 469, 474; Paul v. Hadley, 23
Barb., 521, 526.

11. Allegans suam turpitudinem non est
audiendus. Underhill v. Van Cortlandt, 2
Johns. Ch., 339, 350. Compare infra, 149,
151, 164.

12. All the powers, being derived from
equity, are even in a court of law to be
construed equitably. Brant v. Gelston, 2
Johns. Cas., 384, 397.

13. A man cannot grant or convey what
he does not own. Seymour v. Canandaigua
& Niagara Falls R. R. Co., 25 Barb., 284,
301. Compare Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend.,
267; Fassett v. Smith, 23 N. Y. (9 Smith),
252; Brower v. Peabody, 13 N. Y. (3 Kern.),
121; Beavers v. Lane, 6 Duer, 232. Compare
infra, 162, 156, 217.

14. Ambiguitas verborum latens, latens
verificatione suppletur; nam quod ex facto
oritur ambiguum, verificatione facti tollitur.
Hyatt v. Pugsley, 23 Barb., 285, 297.

15. An agreement under seal can only be
dissolved eo ligamine quo ligatur. Allen v.
Jaquish, 21 Wend., 628, 632; Howard v.
Cooper, 1 Hill, 44, 49.

16. An alienation pending a suit is void.
Murray . Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch., 566, 580.
Compare infra, 192.

17. A party may waive the benefit of
any condition or provision made in his be-
half, no matter in what manner it may
have been made or secured. Goit v. Na-

ut currere solebat. Carhart v. Auburn
Gas Light Co., 22 Barb., 297, 312.

22. Arbor dum crescit; lignum dum cres-
cere nescit. Dexter v. Taber, 12 Johns., 239,
241.

23. A trustee can never be a purchaser.
Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch., 252, 267;
and see Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N. Y. (8 Smith),
327, 349.

24. Ausis talibus istis non jura subser-
viunt. Wheelwright v. Depeyster, 1 Johns.,
471, 481.

25. Authority to execute a deed must
be given by deed. Blood v. Goodrich, 9
Wend., 68, 75.

26. A verbis legis non est recedendum.
Forrest v. Forrest, 10 Barb., 46, 48.

27. Benigne faciendæ sunt interpreta-
tiones chartarum, ut res magis valeat quam
pereat; et quælibet concessio fortissime
contra donatorem interpretanda est. Hayes
v. Kershow, 1 Sandf. Ch., 258, 268. Com-
pare infra, 275, 277.

28. Bona fides non patitur, ut bis idem
exigatur. Perine v. Dunn, 4 Johns. Ch., 140,
143.

29. Bonitatis æstimationem faciendam
cum pars evincitur. Morris v. Phelps, 5
Johns., 49, 56.

30. By a grant of the reversion the rent
passes. Payn v. Beal, 4 Den., 405, 410.

31. Causa proxima, non remota specta-
tur. Patrick v. Commercial Ins. Co.,11 Johns.,
14, 15; St. John v. American Mutual Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 11 N. Y. (1 Kern.), 516, 523.
Compare infra, 110, 169.

Caveat emptor.

De minimis-.

39. Conventio vincit legem. Allen o, Ja-
quish, 21 Wend., 628, 631; Baker v. Hoag, 7
Barb., 113, 117. Compare infra, 180.

40. Copulatio verborum indicat accep-
tionem in eodem sensu. Breasted. Far-
mers' Loan & Trust Co., 8 N. Y. (4 Seld.), 299,
305.

41. Courts of equity delight to do jus-
tice, and that not by halves. Tallman v.
Varick, 5 Barb., 277, 280.

32. Caveat emptor. Murray v. Trustees 461, 466; Farrington v. Hamblin, 12 Wend.,
of Ringwood Co., 2 Johns. Cas., 278, 279; 212, 213.
Swett v. Colgate, 20 Id., 196, 203; Oneida
Manufacturing Society v. Laurence, 4 Cow.,
440, 442; Welsh v. Carter, 1 Wend., 185, 189;
Gallagher v. Waring, 9 Id., 20, 27; Jackson
v. Robert, 11 Id., 422, 432; Boorman v. Jen-
kins, 12 Id., 566, 576; Hart v. Wright, 17 Id.,
267, 275; Waring v. Mason, 18 Id., 425, 433,
448; Wright . Hart, 18 Id., 449, 458, 455;
Salisbury . Stainer, 19 Id., 159, 161; Howard
v. Hoey, 23 Id., 350, 353; Cleves v. Willough-
by, 7 Hill, 83, 86; Moses v. Mead, 1 Den.,
378, 385; Davis v. Sims, Hill & D. Supp., 234,
235; Hazul v. Dunham, 1 Hall, 655, 658;
Hargous v. Stone, 5 N. Y. (1 Seld.), 73, 81;
Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y. (2 Seld.), 279,
291; Burwell v. Jackson, 9 N. Y. (5 Seld.),
535, 541; McCoy v. Artcher, 3 Barb., 323,
327, 330, 331; Carley v. Wilkins, 6 Id., 557,
561; Clarke . Baird, 7 Id., 64, 67; Paul v.
Hadley, 23 Id., 521, 525, 527; Hotchkiss v.
Gage, 26 Id., 141, 142; Beirne v. Dord, 2
Sandf., 89, 92; N. Y. Marble Iron Works v.
Smith, 4 Duer, 362; and see Mumford v.
McPherson, 1 Johns., 414, 417.

33. Caveat venditor. Wright v. Hart, 18
Wend., 449, 453, 463; Howard v. Hoey, 23
Id., 350, 353; Hargous v. Stone, 5 N. Y. (1
Seld.), 73, 82; McCoy v. Artcher, 3 Barb.,
323, 331.

42. Crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat. Hen-
ry v. Bank of Salina, 5 Hill, 523, 531.
43. Crimen trahit personam. People v.
Adams, 3 Den., 190, 210.

44. Cuilibet in sua arte perito est cre-
dendum. Vandenheuvel v. United Ins. Co.,
2 Johns. Cas., 127, 143; O'Donaghue v. Mc-
Govern, 28 Wend., 26, 33.

45. Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad
cœlum, et ad inferos. Mahan v. Brown, 13
Wend., 261, 263; Auburn & Cato Plank-road
Co. v. Douglass, 9 N. Y. (5 Seld.), 444, 446;
Rowan v. Kelsey, 18 Barb., 484, 489; Can-
field v. Ford, 28 Id., 336, 338; Dows t. Cong-
don, 16 How. Pr., 571, 573.

46. Cum duo interse pugnantia reperi-
untur in testamento, ultimum ratum est.
Bradstreet v. Clarke, 12 Wend., 601, 665.
47. Custom is the best interpreter of the
34. Cessante causa cessat effectus. Ro-law. Meriam v. Harsen, 2 Barb. Ch., 232,
gers v. Rogers, 3 Wend., 503, 509; White v. 269; Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 Id., 528,
Meday, 2 Edw., 486, 489.
Compare infra, 189.

35. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipse lex.
Parks v. Jackson, 11 Wend., 442, 456; Dewitt
v. Barley, 9 N. Y. (5 Seld.), 371, 375; Van
Rensselaer v. Smith, 27 Barb., 104, 148; Grant
v. Quick, 5 Sandf., 612, 613; Langdon v. As-
tor, 3 Duer, 477, 557; Berley v. Rampacher,
5 Id., 183, 186; Tate v. Jordan, 3 Abbotts' Pr.,
392, 394; and see Green v. Hudson River R.
R. Co., 28 Barb., 9, 11.

36. Common opinion is good authority in
law. Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 Barb.
Ch., 528, 577.

577.

48. Debet sua cuique domus esse perfu.
gium tutissimum, Clason v. Shotwell, 12
Johns., 51, 54.

[ocr errors]

49. Debitum et contractus sunt nullius
loci. Post v. Jackson, 17 Johns., 239, 245;
Molony v. Dows, 8 Abbotts' Pr., 316, 328.
Compare infra, 165.

50. Debitum in presenti, solvendum in
futuro. Burrill v. Sheil, 2 Barb., 457, 470;
Utica Ins. Co. v. American Mutual Ins. Co.,
16 Id., 171, 176; Allen v. Hudson River Mu-
tual Ins. Co., 19 Id., 442, 445.

37. Communis error facit jus. Yates v.
51. Delegata potestas non potest dele-
Lansing, 9 Johns., 395, 420; Jackson v. Gil- gari. Hunt o. Burrel, 5 Johns., 137; Thorne
christ, 15 Id., 89, 110; Ayrault v. Houghtail-v. Cramer, 15 Barb., 112, 116.
ing, 1 Hill, 635, 636; Constantine v. Van
Winkle, 6 Id., 177, 205.

38. Consensus tollit errorem. Rogers v.
Oruger, 7 Johns., 557, 611; Watkins v. Wea-
ver, 10 Id., 107, 108; Yates v. Russell, 17 Id.,

52. Delegatus non potest delegare. New-
ton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. (3 Kern.), 587, 594;
Berger v. Duff, 4 Johns. Ch., 868, 369.

53. De minimis non curat lex. Bergen v.
Boerum, 2 Cai., 256, 258; Exp. Becker, 4

De non apparentibus—.

Hill, 613, 615; Conger v. Tradesman's Bank,
Hill & D. Supp., 34, 35; U. S. Trust Co. v.
U. S. Fire Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. (4 Smith), 199,
218; Smith v. Gugerty, 4 Barb., 614, 620;
Hall v. Fisher, 9 Id., 17, 29; Ellicottville, &c.,
Plank-road Co. v. Buffalo, &c., R. R. Co., 20
Id., 644, 651; Corwithe v. Griffing, 21 Id., 9,
15; Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer, 596, 599;
Marshall. Peters, 12 How. Pr., 218, 223.
Compare infra, 264.

54. De non apparentibus et de non exis-
tentibus eodem est ratio. Johnson v. Stagg,
2 Johns., 510, 519; Youngs v. Lee, 12 N. Y.
(2 Kern.), 551, 554; Cook v. Litchfield, 5
Sandf., 330, 340.

55. Discretio est scire per legem quid sit
justum. Le Roy v. Corporation of N. Y., 4
Johns. Ch., 352, 356.

56. Distinguenda sunt tempora. Owens
v. Missionary Society, 14 N. Y. (4 Kern.), 380,
393.

Expressio unius -.

clean hands. Tripp v. Cook, 26 Wend., 143,
160. Compare infra, 99.

67. Equitas sequitur legem. Tallman v.
Varick, 5 Barb., 277, 282.

68. Equity regards whatever is ordered
to be done by one having authority, or
what ought to be done, as actually done.
Burch . Newberry, 1 Barb., 648, 664. Com-
pare infra, 293.

69. Est boni judicis ampliari justiciam,
non jurisdictionem. People v. Judges of
Dutchess Oyer & Terminer, 2 Barb., 282, 287.

70. Every man presumed innocent until
found guilty. People v. Goodwin, 1 Wheel.
Cr., 437.

71. Every man's assent is to be presumed
to a statute. Holmes v. Remsen, 20 Johns.,
229, 260.

72. Every one is bound so to use his
own property that it shall not be the means
of injury to his neighbors. Brown v. Cayu-

57. Donatio perficitur possessione ao-ga & Susquehanna R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. (2
cipientis. Pearson v. Pearson, 7 Johns., 26,
28.

58. Dormit aliquando jus, moritur nun-
quam. Jackson v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Johns. Cas.,
101, 103.

Kern.), 486, 494. Compare infra, 246, 253.
73. Every thing shall be taken most
strongly against the pleader. Allen v. Pat-
terson, 7 N. Y. (3 Seld.), 476, 480.

luisse. Dewitt v. Yates, 10 Johns., 156, 159.

74. Evidentissimis probationibus osten-
59. Dos de dote peti non debet. Dun-datur testatorem multiplicasse legatum vo-
ham v. Osborn, 1 Paige, 634, 636; Safford v.
Safford, 7 Id., 259, 260; Matter of Cregier, 1
Barb. Ch., 598, 602; 6 Ch. Sent., 31; Elwood
v. Klock, 13 Barb., 50, 55.

60. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non
qui negat. Rathbone v. Stocking, 2 Barb.,
135, 148.

61. Emptor emit quam minimo potest;
venditor vendit quam maximo potest. Da-
voue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch., 252, 256.

62. Enumeratio unius est exclusio alte-
rius. Matter of Washburn, 4 Johns. Ch., 106,
113. Compare infra, 81, 106.

63. Eodem modo quo oritur, eodem modo
dissolvitur. Barnard v. Darling, 11 Wend.,
28, 30; Fellows v. Stevens, 24 Id., 294, 298.
64. Equality is equity. Murray v. Riggs,
15 Johns., 571, 583; Norton v. Coons, 6 N.
Y. (2 Seld.), 33, 40; Brouwer v. Harbeck, 9
N. Y. (5 Seld.), 589, 593; Murphy . Harvey,
4 Edwo., 131, 132; Scouten v. Bender, 3 How.
Pr., 185, 189.

65. Equality is justice.
Leavitt, 4 Sandƒ., 252, 281.

75. Ex antecedentibus et consequentibus
fit optima interpretatio. Rogers v. Rogers,
3 Wend., 503, 526.

76. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Graves
v. Delaplaine, 14 Johns., 146, 156; Nellis v.
Clark, 20 Wend., 24, 32; Tracey v. Talmage,
14 N. Y. (4 Kern.), 162, 181; St. John v. St.
John's Church, 15 Barb., 346, 347.

77. Ex nihil nil fit. Jackson v. Waldron,
13 Wend., 178, 221; Root v. Stuyvesant, 18
Id., 257, 301.

78. Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio.
Jackson v. Alexander, 3 Johns., 484, 488; Van-
der Volgen v. Yates, 9 N. Y. (5 Seld.), 219, 222.

79. Expedit reipublicæ ut sit finis litium.
French v. Shotwell, 5 Johns. Ch., 555, 568;
and see Calkins v. Calkins, 3 Barb., 305, 310.
Compare infra, 117.

80. Expressio eorum quæ tacite insunt
nihil operatur. Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. (1
Smith), 9, 120; Ames v. Belden, 17 Barb.,
Nicholson v. 513, 517.

66. Equitable relief will not be granted
to a suitor unless he comes into court with

81. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Baker v. Ludlow, 2 Johns. Cas., 289, 290;
Rogers v. Warner, 8 Johns., 119, 120; Van

« AnteriorContinuar »