« AnteriorContinuar »
whereupon the city prohibited his doing so, poses, reserving the surplus water not re-
Held, That the
all the surplus water, but only so much as
was then used on the premises conveyed ;
the surplus was prior to the right of any
other person to whom similar rights were
ply first. - Read v. The Erie R. Co. et al.,
water-line and authorizing the adjacent 11. A deed or mortgage cannot be held void
granted can be sufficiently ascertained to
chosen by the parties were intended to re-
tion in the Sinking Fund Ordinance.-Id. Storm, 338.
certain premises by warranty deed to de-
Thereafter the premises were sold by order
of the Surrogate for the payment of the
debts of C. and defendants purchased on
the sale. In an action to foreclose the
mortgage, Held, That there was a construct.
ive eviction and a breach of the covenant
for quiet enjoyment, and that plaintiff was
13. A deed to one L., from her father-in-law,
purported to convey certain premises in fee
and declared that it was given to enable her
to sell and convey them in fee simple if she
should so desire ; it then contained a cove-
nant on the grantee's part, that upon a sale
she would invest the proceeds in good se-
curities, and on her death convey the
premises or the proceeds to children born
of her marriage with the grantor's son.
Held, That L., took only a life estate, and
issue having been born of the marriage a
valid remainder was created which vested
on the birth of the issue ; that the power
of sale in the deed was a power in trust
which could only be exercised by the
grantee and could not be delegated to her
executor. — Coleman v. Beach, 410.
14. When a person takes a deed of certain
real property as security for advances to be
made in discharging incumbrances thereon,
or under an agreement to reconvey said
property on repayment of such advances,
he cannot, either directly or indirectly,
acquire the incumbrances and through
their foreclosure obtain an absolute title. —
Vol. 20.-No. 25d.
See BROKERS, 6; CORPORATIONS, 2; DEEDS,
3; ESTOPPEL, 4; FIRE INSURANCE, 21 ;
16. When a person takes a deed of certain real
property under an agreement to reconvey
does not change such situation.--Id.
entitled to re-conveyance in default, the
ment by refunding the sum due.-Id.
ing the title thereto, is bound to consult
anything contained in the pleadings.--Id.
cumbered by two mortgages, for both of
value of the parcel lost to B. at the time of
1. An affidavit may be made by an attorney
who knows the facts for a party who seeks
the Code. -Lane v. Williams et al., 16.
cannot be ordered for the purpose of ob-
required by law.-Nott v. Clews, 274.
cannot be ordered for the purpose of ascer-
the purpose of obtaining admissions. -- Mc-
Mahon v. The Brooklyn City RR. Co., 404.
ination is desired for the purpose of using it
it in evidence on the trial, -Id.
vacate an ex parte order of a judge.--Id.
See BANKS, 6, 7.
21. Where a deed is executed and delivered to
a husband and wife both are seized of the
v. Bram et al., 519.
to wife directly for a more nominal consid-
Johnson v. Rogers et al., 568.
1. In an action brought by an administrator to
recover compensation for the use and occu-
entitled to a discovery and inspection of
the partnership affairs, notwithstanding the
See EASEMENT, 8.
ing partner, refuses to join in such an action 1. D. owned a tract including plaintiff's lot
In D.'s deed of plaintiff's lot it was described
as abutting on said street. Held, That D.'s
grantee acquired an easement in the street,
independent of the public right to use it,
thereby.-Fanning v. Osborne et al., 113.
of defendant, relying on his representation
that a strip of land along the south
bounds was a street and should be opened
and continued as such. The deed contained
no reference to the street, but it was there-
after opened by defendant. Held, That de-
fendant, by opening the street in pursuance
of his agreement, appropriated the space as
a way appurtenant to the premises, and
could not subsequently recall the dedica-
tion.- Newman v. Nellis, 291.
3. Such way, being an apparent easement,
passed to plaintiff by a deed conveying the
premises by metes and bounds, although
the word appurtenances was not used.
4. When there has been an easement with a
servient and dominant tenement, and the
ownership of both tenements has been
vested in the same person, and the owner-
ship is again severed by the conveyance of
the servient tenement without any reference
whatever being made to the servitude pre-
viously existing, but the property is con-
terms as though the servitude had no ex-
istence, the grantee takes such property
uncncumbered by the easement. -Scrymser
v. Phelps, 314.
5. Where various persons threaten to float
large numbers of logs down a non-navigable
stream and to use its banks while doing so,
chose, the owner of lands through which
to quiet his title and to enjoin the threat-
ened injury, and all such persons may be
united as parties defendant. - Meyer v.
Philips et al., 326.
6. Plaintiff's right to recover in such an action 5. Where the Common Council of a city in
cannot be defeated by the fact that since its authorizing the construction of a railroad
construct a swing bridge across a canal, to
do which it became necessary to obtain
open, Held, that the company could acquire
necting ditches through and across the lands land owner has the right to open and close.
7. It is not error for the commissioners, after
the submission of the case, to view the
premises a second time in the absence of
taken for railroad purposes is its fair market
value based on existing conditions and not
on speculations of future developments.-
In re petition of the N. Y., L. & W. RR. Co.
v. Bennet et al., 212.
9. Where the parties have made a contract of
bargain and sale of the premises, leaving
the question of consideration to be decided
by certain commissioners named, who are
to proceed under the statute, and the con-
tract reserves to the parties the right to ap-
court upon setting aside the award on ap-
peal cannot direct the appointment of new
be condemned by a railroad company under 10. To authorize a reversal of the awards of
so decisive a character as to be almost con-
clusive.--In re application of the N. Y. C.
report in railway condemnation proceed-
12. Where, in proceedings to condemn land
for a railroad, the commissioners allow a
subject of purchasing lands for all the pur the owner's objection, that the value of the
awarded they did not make any allowance
or deduction on account of any real or
given to owners of land required for other derive from the construction of the road. -
13. Where, on taking land for railroad pur-
poses, an award was made to the city which
& H. RR. Co., 466.
order of confirmation of the report of com-
failed in his return to a writ of certiorari
was taken.—Mixter v. Bronner, 241.
against a county in the amount audited by
minister upon the estate of an intestate by
tering.–In re accounting of Rusko, 408.
compromise, to accept a less sum in satisfac-
it from claiming the whole amount due
it to his injury.-Id.
SURANCE, 1, 6, 8; HIGHWAYS, 11 ; Part-
payment of a note, the intent of either of
Madden v. Benedict, 30.
eral note to the holder is not affected by
witnesses in reference to the same matter
Tucker v. Ely, 66.
justice's court, plaintiff gave evidence as to
under a contract the defendant set up fraud
N. Y., 100.
plaintiff put in evidence an envelope on
- The Union Trust Co. v. Whiton, 106.
the terms of a contract ambiguous on its
to have been induced by the previous rela-
leged. — Meyers v. Doeman, 111.
breach of contract to furnish a portion of
See Deeds, 3, 12.
1. Where the question is whether a certain
transaction amounted to a purchase or a