« AnteriorContinuar »
Parish v. Golden (35 N. Y., 462),
explained. Westfall v. Preston
Learned v. Smith (44 N. Y., 618),
explained. Peters et al. v. Dela-
Allerton v. Belden (3 Lans., 492),
reversed. Allerton v. Belden, 373
Saunders v. Bacon (8 J. R., 485), and
Tappan v. Ely (15 Wend., 362),
Ryan v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. (35 N. Y.,
210), explained. Webb v. R. W.
Babcock v. L. S. and M. S. R. R. Co.
(43 How. Pr., 317), reversed. Bab-
Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. (25 N.
Y., 562), limited and explained.
Clapp v. Wilson (5 Denio, 288), criti-
cised. Romertze v. East River Nat.
ment provided for the issuing of
People v. Nearing (27 N. Y., 306),
questioned. People ex rel. Wil-
CAUSE OF ACTION.
1. Assessors are not personally liable
for errors or mistakes in the assess-
2. Pláintiff's complaint alleged, in
substance, that certain of the cre-
constitute a cause of action. Vose ing his lien thereon. The com-
337 plaint further alleged that defend-
ant had in its possession the avails
conduct creates or suffers a fire justly belonged to plaintiff by vir- /
420 upon a legal title to the property,
or upon an equity entitling him,
treme drouth, while a strong wind the avails thereof; that the clause
kept, in the name of defendant
alone, S. acting ostensibly as agent.
Plaintiffs made an agreement with
certain hotel property in Omaha, in the name of defendant, and
agement and subject to the direc-
ders, given through S., their stock
he sold and delivered the horse to
See COMMON CARRIER, 5.
See Beatson v. Elwell (Mem.), 678.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
the standard fixed by statute for See REMOVAL OF ACTIONS.
See PARTNERSHIP, 1.
CLAIM AND DELIVERY OF
“Claim and Delivery of Personal
Property” (chap. 2, title 7, SS 206
to 217, inclusive) was intended to
replevin. It does not change the
Schofield v. Whitelegge. 259
executed by an infant is voidable 2. The complaint must show a right
it is based. The facts must be
407 conclusion of law is an immaterial
chattel mortgage upon his horse 3. An omission to allege these facts
ing ownership in the plaintiff.
CODE OF PROCEDURE.
advances, or to pay any indebted-
SS 90, 91, 97. See LIMITATION OF
ACTIONS, 5, 6.
SERVICE AND PROOF OF, 1.
2. Where, therefore, goods are so
shipped, and the carrier receipts
See AssESSMENT AND TAXATION, 6.
COMMISSIONERS OF APPEALS.
A commissioner of appeals is not 3. When one who is not in business
a judge of the Court of Appeals, as a common carrier, but who is
280 common carrier who has know-
ledge of the facts and receives a
subject to liability as a common
carrier. The fact that the com-
mon carrier, as such, contracted
with others for the carriage of the
freight, and that the owner of the
His liability is determined by the
business in which he is engaged,
and the character of his own
employment, not that of his em.
4. To sustain an action against a
common carrier for a failure to
deliver goods the plaintiff must
be the owner thereof, or have
some special_interest in them.
If the goods are ordered
of the consignor by the consignee 8. In an action against a common
Id. of their arrival, where there is no
dispute as to the facts, is a ques-
tion of law for the court. A sub-
mission of the question to the jury
is error, and, in case the jury finds
different from what the law de-
termines, it is ground for reversal.
Hedges v. H. R. R. R.
of the arrival of property for him,
defer taking it away while he at-
other affairs. It is his
duty, at once, and with diligence,
to act upon the notice, to seek
delivery, and continue until de-
as he gives to his other business,
to the neglect of taking charge of
the property and removing it from
the custody of the carrier, cannot
be allowed to him in estimating
what is a reasonable time in which
to take delivery.