Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Title of Case.

Reported in Full. Scott v. Montello..

.18 J. & S., 448... Scott et al. v. Morgan,

94 N. Y., 508. Seabolt v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co..

.31 Hun, 100. Second Natl. Bk. of Oswego v. Burt...

..93 N. Y., 233. Segelken v. Meyer....

.94 N. Y., 473. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Hawley.

.32 Hun, 288. Seward et al. v. Huntington.

.94 N. Y., 104.. Seyblot v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co.. .95 N. Y., 562. Sharp v. Hutchinson...

.17 J. & S., 50. Shaver v. The N. Y. & Lake Champlain Transp. Co...31 Hun, 55. Shaw v. McCarthy..

.63 How., 286. Shepherd's Fold v. The Mayor, &c., of N. Y. .10 Daly, 319. Shepherd's Fold v. The Mayor, &c., of N. Y. .96 N. Y., 137. Sherwood v. Pierce...

.18 J. & S., 378. Shillito et al. v. Reineking et al.

30 Hun, 345.. Shipman v. Rollins ct al.

.33 Hun, 89. Shoe & Leather Reporter Assu. v. Bailey.

.17 J. & S., 385.. Siewert v. Hamel ...

..33 Hun, 44.. Silberman et al. v. Clark et al.

.96 N. Y., 522. Simmops v. Simmons..

..32 Hun, 551.. Simons ct al. v. First Nat. Bk. of Union Spgs. et al....93 N. Y., 269. Simonton et al. v. Hays et al.

32 Hun, 286. Simpsou v. Del Hoyo et al..

.94 N. Y., 189. Simpson et al. v. St. John.

.93 N. Y., 363 Skidmore v. Post.

32 Hun, 54. Slauson v. Watkins.

.95 N. Y., 369. Smadbeck v. Sisson et al.

.31 Hun, 582. Smiley v. Fry..

.17 J. & 8., 134. Smith, assigvee, v. Bowers et al.

.3 Civ. Pro., 72.. Smith et al. v. Clews et al..

.14 Abb. N. C., 465.. Smith et al. v. Kibbie

.31 Hun, 390.. Smith v. Newell...

.32 Hun, 501. Smith v. The L. I. RR. Co..

.32 Hun, 38.. Smith v. Zalinski..

.94 N. Y., 519. Smyth v. Sturges.

.65 How., 360. Soyder v. Snyder et al.

.96 N. Y., 88. Snyder et al. v. The Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co..

.95 N. Y., 196. Solomon v. The Manh:ttan R. Co...

.31 Hun, 5.. Sparks v. Bassett....

.17 J. & S., 270. Spencer v. Spencer..

..95 N. Y., 353.. Spies v. Roberts.

.18 J. & S., 301.. Spinney v. Thurber.

..33 Hun, 448.. Stanford v. Lockwood et al.

95 N. Y., 582 Stebbins v. Cowles....

.30 Hun, 523.. Stedeker v. Bernard..

.93 N. Y., 589. Stedman v. Davis et al.

.93 N. Y., 32. Stecle v. Ward et al. ..

.30 Hun, 555. Stokes v. Stickney et al..

.96 N. Y., 323 Story v. The Williamsburgh Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn..95 N. Y., 474. Strohm v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co...

.96 N. Y., 305. Strong v. The Brooklyn Crosstown RR. Co.... 93 N. Y., 436. Stuebing v. Marshall et al......

.10 Daly, 406.. Sturges v.. Wiltsie..

..32 Hun, 628. Sutherland v. Olcott ct al.

..95 N. Y., 93

W. Dig. XIX., 462 XVIII., 413 .XVIII., 405 .XVIII., 56 XVIII., 425

XIX., 76 XVIII., 222

.XIX., 133 XVII., 288 XVIII., 94 .XIV., 569 .XIII., 572 ..XIX., 299

.XIX., 503 XVIII., 13

XIX., 370 XVIII., 296 .XIX., 407 .XIX., 538 .XIX., 234 XVII., 423

XIX.56 .XVIII., 144

XVII., 449 XVIII., 472 XVIII., 561 XVIII., 407 XVII., 285 ...XV., 485 XVIII., 436 .XIX., 118 .XIX., 225 XVIII., 476 .XVIII., 282 XVIII., 43

XIX., 163 XVIII., 446 .XVIII., 9 .XVIII., 191

.XIX., 32 .XIX., 505 ..XIX., 575

.XIX., 155 XVIII., 152 .XVIII., 100

XVII., 154 .XVIII., 111

XIX., 251 XIX., 4 .XIX., 314 XVIII., 63

.XIV., 289 ..XIX., 266 XVIII., 499

T

Talcott v. Ernstein...

.10 Daly, 210..... Talcott v. Harris et al.

.93 N. Y., 567. Talcott v. Hess...

.31 Hun, 282. Taylor v. Post.

.30 Hun, 446. Teal v. The City of Syracuse.

.32 Hun, 332. Tenney v. Bergen..

.93 N. Y., 524. Thayer v. King..

31 Hun, 437... Thomas et al. v. Bogert et al..

.33 Hun, 11. Thomas v. The N. Y. Life Ins. Co.....

18 J. & S., 225. Thomas v. Williams..

.32 Hun, 257. Thompson v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co..........33 Hun, 16.

.XII., 441 .XVIII., 81 .XVIII., 312 .XVIII., 11

XIX., 400
XVIII., 30
XVIII., 474

.XIX., 396
XIX., 335
.XIX., 285
.XIX., 347

Title of Case.

Reported in Full. Thorne v. Turck..

.10 Daly, 327. Thorne v. Turck.

.94 N. Y., 90. Tiers v. Tiers et al..

..32 Hun, 184. Tifft et al. v. Bloomberg.

.17 J. & S., 323. Tillman v. Davis (t al...

.95 N. Y., 17. Tim et al. v. Smith.....

..93 N. Y., 87. Todd v, Weber et al.,

95 N. Y., 181. Toronto Gen. Trust Co. v. The C. B. & Q. RR. Co....32 Hun, 190. Town of Hancock v. The First Nat'l Bk..

.93 N. Y., 82. Townsend v. Simpson..

.62 How., 500. Townsend v. Williams.

18 J. & S., 394 Traud v. Magnes et al.

.17 J. & S., 309. Trustees of Firemen's Ben. Fund v. Roome.

.93 N. Y., 313. Tunstall v. Winton.

31 Hun, 219. Tunstall y. Winton

.31 Hun, 222. Tunstall v. Winton.

..31 Hun, 231. Tyson v. Tompkins.

..10 Daly 244.

W. Dig. .XIII., 550 .XVIII., 200 ..XIX., 213 XVIII., 277 .XVIII, 450

.XVII., 247 .XVIII., 496

.XIX, 42 XVII., 282 XIII., 4.30

XIX., 502 XVIII., 18 XVIII., 33 XVIII., 205 XVIII, 276 .XVIII., 290

.XII., 559

U

Union Dime Savgs. Inst. v. Clark et al...
Uhrig v. The Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co....
Utica Waterworks Co. v. Tlc Čity of Ulica...

94 N. Y., 221.. .31 Hun, 98.. .31 Hun, 420.

XVIII., 193 .XVIII,, 407

.XIX.14

V

Van Arnam v. McCunc.

.32 Ilun, 315. Vann et al. v. Rouse et al.

.94 N. Y., 401. Van Schauck v. Saunders.

.32 Hun, 515. Van Vorhis v. Kelly et al.

.31 Hun, 293. Van Vranken v. The City of Schenectady.

.31 llun, 516. Vatable et al. v. The N.Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co... .90 N. Y., 49. Voeder v. Judson

.95 N. Y., 295. Vick v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co...

.95 N. Y., 267. Viets v. The Union Nail Bk..

.31 Hun, 484. Village of Port Jervis v. The First Nat'l Bk. of Port Jervis...

96 N. Y., 550,.. Vosburg v. The L. S. & M. S. RR. Co.

.94 N. Y., 374. Vosper v. The Mayor, &c., of N. Y.

.17 J. & S., 296.

.XIX., 412 .XVIII. 318 ...XIX., 170 XVIII., 308 XVIII, 359

XIX., 178 XVIII., 515 XVIII., 5(15 .XVIII., 372

.XIX., 565 .XVIII, 300 XVIII., 98

W

Wadsworth v. Lyon et al

.93 N. Y., 201. Wager et al. v. Wager.,

.96 N. Y., 164. Waldele v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co..

.95 N. Y., 274. Waldo v. Waldo et al..

.32 Hun, 251. Walsh v. The Trustces of the N. Y. & Bʻklyn Bridge Co.96 N. Y., 427 Warner v. Jaffray et al.

.30 Ilun, 326.. Warner v. Jaffray ct al.

..96 N. Y., 248. Watson v. The 420 St. & Grand St. Ferry RR. Co....93 N. Y., 522. Watts v. Nichols et al.

.32 Hun, 276. Watis et al. v. Ronald....

.95 N. Y., 226. Wayne Co. Suy'us Bk. v. Brackett et al.

.31 Hun, 434. Weed et al. v. Paine et al.

.31 Hun, 10.. Weerl et al. v. Root...

.94 N. Y., 243. Welch v. Platt.

32 Hun, 194. Welling v. Ryc son.

.94 N. Y., 98.. West Troy Watcrworks Co. v. The Village of Green

32 Hun, 530. Wheeler v. Tracy.

.17 J. & S., 208. White v. Rintoul...

.17 J. & S., 421. Wlutford v. Laidler et al.

.94 N. Y., 145. Wuiting v. Edmunds et al.,

94 N. Y., 309. Whirman et al. v. James et al.

10 Daly. 490. Whimney et al. v. The N. Y. & Atlantic RR. Co. ..32 llun, 164.. Whitney et al. v. The State....

1.96 N. Y., 240...

.XVIII., 74

.XIX., 318 .XVIII., 542

XIX., 100

.XIX., 547 XVIII., 47

.XIX, 388 .XVII., 510

XIX., 165 XVIII., 451 .XVIII., 530 .XVIII., 20 .XVIII., 316

XIX., 265 XVIII., 302

Island....:

XIX., 207 XVIII., 26 XVIII., 263 .XVIII., 141 XVIII., 417

.XIV., 214 .XIX., 236 .XIX., 323

Tille of Cuse. Wiberly v. Matthews.. Wilder v.

Ranney et al. Wile v. Wilson.. Williams v. The W. U. Tel. Co... Wilmore v. Flick.. Wilson v. Bennett Wilson v. Kelly... Wilson v. Reynolds ct al. Winter v. Eckert et al... Winton v. Winton... Witkouski v. Parainore. Woud v. Rabe et al.. Woodruff v. The Erie R. Co. et al. Woodruff v. Young. Woolley v. Woolley et al Woolver et al. v. Hill et al. Woolsey v. Morris et al. Wright v. Nostrand et al. Wunderlich et al. v. Wipfler et al. Wyckoff v. Andrews..

Reported in Full. ...10 Daly, 153.. .95 N. Y., 7. .93 N. Y., 255. .93 N. Y.. 162.. .96 N. Y., 512. 2 Civ. Pro., 34... .31 Hun, 75. .31 Hun, 46. .93 N. Y., 367.. .31 Hun, 290.. .93 N. Y., 467. .91i N. Y., 414. ..93 N. Y.. 609. ..31 Hun, 420 .95 N. Y., 231. .93 N. Y., 576 .96 N. Y., 311... .94 N. Y., 31.... 31 Hun, 1.. ,18 J. & S., 196

W. Dig.

.XI., 471 .XVIII., 400

XVII., 422 XVIII., 177 .XIX., 523

XIV., 452 .XVIII., 118 XVIII., 107

XVII., 561 .XVIII., 262 ..XVII., 483

XIX., 558 XVIII., 197 XVIII., 353 XVIII., 574 XVIII., 171

XIX., 390 XVIII., 248 XVIII.,

34 .XIX., 356

[blocks in formation]

IN D E X.

ABANDONMENT.

ADJOINING OWNERS.

Sce EASEMENT, 8; NUISANCE.

ADMINISTRATOR.

See DisCOVERY, 1-3; EXECUTORS; ESTOP-

PEL, 3.

1. A writ of certiorari properly issues to re-

view in this court the proceedings of a po.
lice magistrate on trying a charge of aban-
donment.-The People ex rel. Scherer v.

Walsh, 308.
2. The fact that the police magistrate en-

titled the proceedings as in Special Sessions
does not affect the rights of the parties nor
alter the fact that such magistrate sat as a

police justice.-Id.
3. On such proceedings before the justice re-

lator offered evidence to show that she had
left the house of her husband, who was on
trial for the abandonment, because she
feared personal violence from his hands,

which was excluded. Held, Error.-ld.
4. The surety on an undertaking given on a

conviction under Chap. 395, Laws of 1871,
relating to proceedings against husbands
abandoning their wives in the county of
Kings, is concluded by such conviction and
cannot, in an action on the undertaking,
again litigate the liability of his principal
to support the woman who instituted the
proceedings.— The Board of Commissioners
of Charities v. O'Rourke et al., 460.

ADMIRALTY.
1. The U. S. District Courts have jurisdiction

of a libel for towage against a canal boat
without masts or stcam power, and such
jurisdiction is not taken away by U. S. R.

S., 8 4251.-Ryan v. Hook, 200.
2. A sale of the boat in such proceedings will
cut off a prior chattel mortgage.--Id.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.
1. In an action to compel the specific per-

formance of a contract to purchasc real
property it appeared that the last person
who had a record title to the premises in
question was one B., who died in 1816,
leaving a will by which he devised such
premises, with others, to his executors in
trust, with power to sell same and dis-
tribute the proceeds among his legatees ;
that in 1821 one T. was in possession of
said premises, but that no conveyance to
him was on record ; that in 1836 a partition
suit was instituted by the beirs and devisees
of B. to divide all his real estate then un-
distributed under his will, and that the
premises in question were not included in
such suit ; that T. continued in possession
of the premises, claiming them as his own,
until 1867, when he died, leaving a will,
and that in 1882 his executor, under a
power of sale contained therein, conveyed
the premises to the plaintiff. Held, That
defendant should be required to perform
his contract to purchase the property.—
Ottinger et al. v. Štrasburger, 79.

ABATEMENT.

1. An action for personal injuries does not

survive the death of the injured party.-

Kelsey et al. v. Jewett, 166.
2. If a verdict for personal injuries is set

aside and plaintiff dies before another trial,

the cause of action abates.-I.
See Civil DAMAGE ACT, 4; WILLS, 6.

ABORTION.

AFFIDAVIT.

1. A woman upon whom an abortion has

been produced at the instance of her para-
mour is not an accomplice in the commis-
sion of the crime within the meaning of
the section of the Code requiring corrobo-
ration of the testimony of an accomplice.--
The People v. Vedder, 487.

Vol. 20.-No. 251

1. The officer before whom affidavits may be

taken without the State, under $ 844, Code
Civ. Pro., is one who is authorized to take
acknowledgment of deeds by the laws of

« AnteriorContinuar »