« AnteriorContinuar »
5. An order making an extra allow-
ance when it does not exceed the
pass upon the weight of conflicting not reviewable in this court. South-
7. When a judgment is rendered by
the facts found by a referee, his taken subject to the opinion of
allege as error that which was
inserted in a judgment at his own
See Costs, 1.
proper question which is objected
63 of commissioners of estimate and
assessment in proceedings, under
Laws of 1869, for the widening
and straightening of Broadway,
may be set aside upon motion for
re. Mayor, etc.
to the remedy by motion to set it over the persons of tax-payers, the
Id. roll, or the subject-matter of the
assessment for the current year,
for errors or mistakes in the as- the assessments already made and
lity, and where the defect appears
first of July, and of property and date of the jurat, it confers no ju-
ld. 774, Laws of 1867), is such an in-
terference with the proprietary
statute in the measures prelimi- him to the just compensation made
inspection, the assessment roll is perpetuity will serve the purposes
proper form. It was the duty of after return made. People ex rel.
11. But one assessment under the
See TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 1.
kers, they are entitled to compen-
sation as such, but cannot charge
a counsel fee for conversations
with their employers about the
procurement of a grant of the tract. Walker v. Åm. Nat. Bank.
bailee not to deliver his property
to any person except upon his
wife of the bailor without such
order is not equivalent to a de-
livery to the husband, and does
not discharge the bailee from lia-
bility. Kowing v. Manly. 193
tained possession of the husband's
property from his bailee by a
fraud, the bailee could maintain
an action against both husband
and wife for the wrong, that is not
a defence to and will not bar a re-
covery by him against the bailee.
See PARTNERSHIP, 5.
BILLS, NOTES, CHECKS. sent of the maker is a material
alteration, and destroys the note
less than their face, representing
of a foreign bill of exchange is in fact they are accommodation
Id. JONES V. SCHREYER (Mem.), 674.
of 1857), in relation to commercial
copartner to another, upon disso-
lution of the copartnership, set-
ting forth as the consideration
therefor the transfer and delivery
hy the obligee to his former part-
substantive part of the agreement,
and cannot be varied or contra-
dicted by parol evidence. Where
a bond is delivered to the obligee
by parol that it was delivered as
in escrow. Cocks v. Barker. 107
See Usury, 1.
& L. Co. (Mem.), 666.
6. Where such a memorandum is an
standing, negotiate himself, and if | Manhattan Co. v. Evertsen (6 Paige,
questioned. Marine Bank of Chi
cago v. Van Brunt.
, a real estate broker, to Kinney v. Kiernan et al. (2 Lans., 492),
son v. Fargo.
People v. Herit (2 Park. Cr., 20), ques-
tioned. Kowing v. Manly et al.
Penn, Jr., v. Buff. and E. R. R. Co. (3
Lans., 443), reversed. Penn, Jr., v.
Levin v. Russell (42 N. Y., 231), ex-
plained. Scofield v. Whitelegge.
(3 Lans., 86), reversed. Commer-
Weaver v. Barden (3 Lans. 338), re-
Weaver v. Barden.
Barb., 193), criticised and limited.
McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R.
Hubbell v. Von Schoening (58 Barb.,
498), reversed. Hubbell v. Schoen-
Pr., 299), questioned. Malloney v. explained. Vose v. Coudrey et al.