Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

loss within insurance policy, see "Insur- See "Contracts."
ice," §§ 8, 11.

ADMINISTRATION.

estate of decedent, see "Executors and Ad-
inistrators."

property by receiver, see "Receivers," § 1.
trust property, see "Trusts," § 4.

ADMISSIONS.

evidence, see "Evidence," § 5.
leading, see "Pleading," § 3.

"Food."

ADULTERATION.

vs defining as unjust discrimination,
Constitutional Law," § 4.

ADVERSE CLAIM.

real property, see "Quieting Title."

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

"Limitation of Actions."

1. Nature and requisites.

AGRICULTURE.

Law defining adulteration of vinegar as un-
just discrimination, see "Constitutional Law,"
§ 4.
Partial invalidity of agricultural law, see "Stat-
utes," § 1.

ALIENATION.

Suspension of power of alienation of property,
see "Perpetuities."

ALIENS.

§ 1. Disabilities.

An alien's right to take real estate in New
see York by descent is governed by the statutes in
force at the time of the death of the owner
through whom such alien claimed title.-Stew-
art v. Russell (Sup.) 625.

Where plaintiff's grandfather was living at
the time of the death of S., and would have in-
herited certain real estate belonging to S.,
plaintiff could not recover such real estate,
after his grandfather's death, as heir of S.-
Stewart v. Russell (Sup.) 625.

Laws 1845, p. 95, c. 115, § 4, as amended
by Laws 1875, p. 32, c. 38, providing for the

nder Code Civ. Proc. § 369, adverse posses-transmission of real estate of a citizen who has
must be under claim of title exclusive of
other right.-Fortier v. Delaware, L. & W.
Co. (Sup.) 896.

Inder Code Civ. Proc. 88 371, 372, one who
ve piles marking space which he did not oth-
ise occupy held not to have adverse posses-
1.-Fortier v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.
p.) 896.

2. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re-
view.

vidence held to support finding that one had

purchased or taken a conveyance thereof to his
heirs, whether citizens or aliens, held not to
apply to land taken by descent.-Stewart v.
Russell (Sup.) 625.

ALIMONY.

See "Divorce," § 2.

ALLOWANCE.

. occupied land adversely, continuously for To surviving wife, husband, or children of de-
years. Fortier v. Delaware, L. & W. R. cedent, see "Executors and Administrators,"
(Sup.) 896.
§ 2.

ALTERATION.

and 120 New York State Reporter

Review in special proceedings. Assessment of taxes, see "Taxation," § 3. Of geographical or political divisions, see Proceedings before referee, see "Reference," "Schools and School Districts," § 1.

[blocks in formation]

See "Game."

ANIMALS.

§ 2.

Under inheritance tax laws, see "Taxation,” § 7.

Review of criminal prosecutions.
See "Criminal Law," § 5; "Homicide,” § 5.

1. Decisions reviewable.

Judgment entered without decision of court. no motion to vacate being made, held reversible. -Kent v. Common Council of City of Binghamton (Sup.) 411.

2. Right of review.

A party who fails to take advantage of an order granting him a new trial has no ground for complaint, on an appeal from the judgment. "Ref--Carter v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 206. § 3. Presentation and reservation in lower court of grounds of review. On appeal from a judgment, the question as to the reasonableness of conditions imposed in an order granting a new trial held not reviewable.-Carter v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.)

Expert testimony as to value of, see "Evidence," § 8.

Keeping and use of in cities, see "Municipal
Corporations," § 4.
Presumptions as to disposition of dog, see "Evi-
dence," § 2.

Where one, with knowledge of the propensities of a vicious dog, keeps it, if the dog does mischief, negligence will be presumed.-Boler v. Sorgenfrei (Sup.) 180.

Evidence in action for personal injuries inflicted by vicious dog held sufficient to make out a prima facie case for plaintiff.-Boler v. Sorgenfrei (Sup.) 180.

In an action against a husband and wife for personal injuries inflicted by a dog, the complaint is properly dismissed against the wife, where the evidence does not connect her with

the ownership of the dog.-Boler v. Sorgenfrei (Sup.) 180.

[blocks in formation]

206.

On appeal from order refusing new trial, court may determine sufficiency of evidence, though no motion was made on trial.-Glaser v. Michelson (Sup.) 286.

Where the instructions do not fully state the correct theory of the case, there must be a new trial, though plaintiff did not except thereto.Gorman v. Milliken (Sup.) 699.

Statement of a witness, open to the criticism of expressing an opinion not called for by the question, is not ground for reversal; no motion being made to strike it out.-Rosenblatt v. Joseph M. Cohen House Wrecking Co. (Sup.) 801.

Objection that the evidence as to breach of the contract sued on was not admissible under the answer, not having been made at the trial, may not be made on appeal.-Hellinger v. Marshall (Sup.) 1051.

§ 4. Record and proceedings not in record.

Presumption of sufficiency of evidence to sustain referee's findings indulged in absence of case on appeal, not falling within Code Civ. Proc. 1022.-Tompkins v. Morton Trust Co. (Sup.) 520.

Question presented on appeal from referee's judgment, not falling within Code Civ. Proc. § 1022, held to be whether facts found justified conclusions of law.-Tompkins v. Morton Trust

Appellate jurisdiction of particular courts, see Co. (Sup.) 520. "Courts," § 3.

Costs, see "Costs," § 4.

Review of proceedings of justices of the peace, see "Justices of the Peace," § 1. Stay of action pending appeal in different action, see "Action," § 2.

Review in particular civil actions. See "Specific Performance," § 4.

In municipal courts, see "Courts," § 2.

Where a case on appeal has no certificate stating that it contains all the evidence taken on the trial, the appellate court will not examine the facts; but in an action tried by s jury it may review the exceptions to the rul ings of the trial justice.-Baker v. Griffin (Sup.)

579.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1353, the judge trying the cause should order the printed pa

pers on file, before an appeal founded on a
case can be heard.-Odendall v. Haebler (Sup.)
599.

Question of propriety of dismissal of com-
plaint held sufficiently reserved in lower court
to permit review on appeal.-Boehringer v.
Hirsch (Sup.) 726.

Exceptions of prevailing party to exclusion
of evidence held not to be incorporated in the
case. In re Levy's Will (Sup.) 862.

Mere assertion of counsel's view of the law
will not be incorporated in the case on appeal.
-In re Levy's Will (Sup.) 862.

[blocks in formation]

On an appeal from the dismissal of a com-
plaint at the end of plaintiff's case, the Su-
preme Court must examine the entire record.
Baker v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 9.

On an appeal from a nonsuit, plaintiff is en-
itled to the presumption that he could have
roved material facts contained in his offer of
roof.-O'Connor v. Moody (Sup.) 214.

On appeal from final judgment to obtain re-
view of intermediate order, notice required by
Code Civ. Proc. § 1316, must be given.-Stearns
. Shepard & Morse Lumber Co. (Sup.) 396.
Appellate Division, having once decided that
question was for jury, should, on an appeal
fter a new trial, adhere to that decision, and
ffirm a judgment based on verdict of jury.—
ewis v. Upton (Sup.) 397.

A judgment on conflicting evidence will not
be disturbed on appeal.-Leonardi v. Stemmler
(Sup.) 242.

Where the evidence is conflicting, the ver-
dict of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal.
Deitch v. Feder (Sup.) 802; Keating v. Mott
(Sup.) 1041.

Unless it can be said with reasonable certain-

ty that the court erred, a reversal of its find-
ing of a fact would not be justified.-Palmer
v. Ward (Sup.) 990.

[blocks in formation]

Amendment of auswer in action on fire in-
surance policy, setting up failure to mail proofs
& Loomis Ice & Transportation Co. v. Wielar
of loss, held not prejudicial to plaintiff.-Huse
(Sup.) 24.

plaintiff's witness on cross-examination, is to
Any error in excluding the question, put to
what driver he delivered certain goods to, was
cured when the same witness was subsequently
allowed to state that he gave the goods to a
certain driver named.-Brill v. Levin (Sup.) 109.

sion of a letter written by plaintiff to her father-
In a suit for separation, the erroneous admis-
in-law was harmless, where other evidence en-
titled her to the relief demanded.-Duryea v.
Duryea (Sup.) 337.

Judgment introduced being binding on all
questions but that of damages, rulings on evi-
dence as to other matter held immaterial.-
Stearns v. Shepard & Morse Lumber Co. (Sup.)
391.

In action on account stated, where the ex-
Baker v. Griffin (Sup.) 579.
of certain evidence held prejudicial error.-

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1022, it will be as-
umed on appeal that, where record contains no
ecision, none was filed. - Kent v. Common
Council of City of Binghamton (Sup.) 411.
Where plaintiff did not appeal from an ad-istence of account was put in issue, exclusion
erse ruling that certain real estate belonged to
partnership of which her husband was a mem-
er, she could not contend, on defendant's ap-
eal. that some of such property did not belong
O the firm.-Hauptmann v. Hauptmann (Sup.)
27.

The introduction of a power of attorney, al-
leged to have been improperly acknowledged,
in a suit not depending thereon, held without
prejudice. Jordan v. Underhill (Sup.) 620.

In an action on a building contract, defend-
ant held not prejudiced by the submission of a
question as to the date the contract was com-
pleted.-Cornell v. Standard Oil Co. (Sup.)

Defendant, who prevented testimony as to
hild's age by refusing to permit use of an in-
erpreter, could not contend, in support of a
dgment for dismissal, that there was no evi-
ence as to the age of the child, so as to ex-633.
nerate it from contributory negligence.-Men-
ella v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 930.
Where parties moved for disposition of case
s upon questions of law, it was the duty of
e Appellate Division on appeal to adopt_in-
erences favoring trial justice's decision.-Cul-
nan v. Burkhard (Sup.) 1003.

[blocks in formation]

A party cannot claim on appeal that evidence
ffered on a particular issue was erroneously
xcluded, because relevant to a different issue.-
. H. Ogden Lumber Co. v. Busse (Sup.) 1098.
Questions of fact, verdicts, and
findings.
Where a judgment in replevin gives defend-
at "possession of the chattels or their value,
xed at $400,' and the evidence showed the
alue was but $100, the judgment will be re-
ersed.-Lipschitz v. McCarty (Sup.) 21.

Instruction in an action for conversion, held
too favorable to defendant.-Heyert v. Reub-
man (Sup.) 797.

Error in admission of evidence to an admit-
ted fact held harmless.-Pescia v. Societa Co-
operativa Corleonese Francesco Bentivegna
(Sup.) 952.

Contradiction of plaintiff's own witness, in
personal injury case against a street car com-
pany, in the course of which plaintiff's husband
testified to his declaration that plaintiff was
thrown from the car, held prejudicial error.-
Wimmer v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Sup.)

1052.

The erroneous admission of evidence on an
immaterial issue is harmless.-E. H. Ogden
Lumber Co. v. Busse (Sup.) 1098.

cause.

and 120 New York State Reporter

§ 8. Determination and disposition of In a prosecution for assault, a verdict of conviction held contrary to the weight of evidence. Portion of order appealed from held reversi--People v. Dankberg (Sup.) 423. ble, without reversing remainder.-O'Connor v. Hendrick (Sup.) 1.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 194, providing for remittitur by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court must conform its order to the remittitur, and error therein can be corrected only by the Court of Appeals.-Zapf v. Carter (Sup.) 175.

A judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits affirmed, notwithstanding it did not clearly appear from the return on appeal that it was at the close of the whole case, as required by Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1561, c. 580, § 249.-Cohen v. Boccuzzi (Sup.) 187.

Under express provisions of Code Civ. Proc. $ 1022, prior to amendment by Laws 1903, c. 85, p. 237, the Appellate Division must review a short-form decision on both law and fact.Multz v. Price (Sup.) 480.

Where a building contractor was entitled to be allowed a large part of, if not the entire, time for which a penalty for delay was charged by the trial court, the Appellate Division, on the contractor's appeal, was required to order a new trial.-Small v. Burke (Sup.) 1066.

APPLIANCES.

Liability of employer for defects, see "Master and Servant," § 3.

APPLICATION.

For security for costs, see "Costs," § 2.

APPOINTMENT.

ASSESSMENT.

Of compensation for property taken for public use, see "Eminent Domain," § 3. Of expenses of public improvements, see "Municipal Corporations," § 3. of tax, see "Taxation," § 3.

ASSIGNMENTS.

Fraud as to creditors, see "Fraudulent Conveyances.'

[ocr errors]

In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.
Of insurance, see "Insurance," 3.
Of note, see "Bills and Notes," § 2.
§ 1. Requisites and validity.

Where several stockholders in a corporation were induced to purchase their stock by defendant's misrepresentations, they were entitled to assign their causes of action for deceit to plaintiff, in order that a recovery for the entire wrong might be had in a single action.-Benedict v. Guardian Trust Co. (Sup.) 370.

§ 2. Actions.

Assignment of stock held to carry with it right of action for its conversion.-Rothschild v. Allen (Sup.) 42.

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

See "Bankruptcy," § 1.

ASSOCIATIONS.

Of receivers of foreign corporations, see "Cor- See "Beneficial Associations." porations," § 6.

Of trustee, see "Trusts," § 3.

APPRENTICES.

Attempt to get possession of nonresident infant jockey, for purposes of gain, all the parties being residents of another state, will not be entertained by the Supreme Court.-Reiss v. Plicque (Sup.) 704.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD. See "Reference."

ASSAULT AND BATTERY. Jurisdiction of municipal courts as to action for assault on passenger, see "Courts," § 2.

§ 1. Criminal responsibility.

In a prosecution for assault, an instruction on self-defense held erroneous.-People v. Dankberg (Sup.) 423.

An action cannot be maintained against an officer of an unincorporated association of more than seven members, unless all of the associates were liable jointly or severally.-Hosman v. Kinneally (Sup.) 263.

Members of an unincorporated political organization held not liable for services of a person employed by the manager of a paper published by the organization, without proof of his authority to pledge their individual creditHosman v. Kinneally (Sup.) 263.

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See "Account Stated"; "Money Lent"; "Work and Labor."

ASSUMPTION.

Of debts of old corporation by reorganized corporation, see "Corporations," § 4.

Of risk by employé, see "Master and Servant," § 2.

ATTACHMENT.

See "Execution."

The statute of limitations does not begin to
run against an attorney's claim for compensa-
tion until the termination of his relation as at-

Against foreign corporations, see "Corpora- torney in the suit.-McCrea v. Scofield (Sup.)
tions." § 6.

Exemptions, see "Exemptions."

In actions for alimony, see "Divorce," § 2.

§ 1. Proceedings to procure.

Affidavits held insufficient to support attach-
ment and default judgment founded thereon
under Laws 1902, p. 1519, c. 580, § 91.-Dela-
ney v. Bouse (Sup.) 880.

§ 2. Levy, lien, and custody and dis-
position of property.
Notwithstanding Code Civ. Proc. § 649, subd.
2, levy of attachment on promissory note in
hands of pledgee held sufficient, when made by
serving notice and permitting note to remain in
pledgee's hands.-Hardon v. Dixon (Sup.) 346.
§ 3. Proceedings to support or enforce.
Defendant against whom default judgment
was entered held not to have waived, by ap-
pearance, right to contest jurisdiction of court.
-Delaney v. Bouse (Sup.) 880.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

Attorneys in fact, see "Principal and Agent."
Control by mandamus of attorney general's ap-
proval of receiver's contract for employment
of attorney, see "Mandamus," § 1.

Dismissal of suit conditional on payment of at-
torney's fees, see "Dismissal and Nonsuit,"
§ 1.

Expenditures by personal representatives for at-
torney's fees, see "Executors and Adminis-
trators." § 1.

Expenditure by trustee for attorney's fees, see
"Trusts," § 4.

Liability for wrongful entry of default judg-

ment, see "Torts."

1. Retainer and authority.

Court held to have no authority to require in-
terveners to defend through attorney employed
by original defendant.-O'Connor v. Hendrick
(Sup.) 1.

§ 2. Duties and liabilities of attorney
to client.

An action against an attorney held for breach
of duty, and not for conversion, so that a de-
mand before suit brought was not required.-
Vooth v. McEachen (Sup.) 431.

In an action against an attorney for breach
of duty in collecting a claim, a verdict for plain-
tiff held not excessive.-Vooth v. McEachen
(Sup.) 431.

In an action against an attorney for breach
of duty in collecting a claim, a verdict for plain-
tiff held not so contrary to the evidence as to re-
quire reversal.-Vooth v. McEachen (Sup.) 431.
§ 3. Compensation and lien of attor-

[blocks in formation]

10.

Client held not entitled to recover fees pre-
paid attorney on electing to abandon case.--
Riehl v. Levy (Sup.) 464.

Order allowing financially responsible plaintiff
to dismiss action, pursuant to compromise, only
on paying his attorney's fee, otherwise the at-
torney to continue the suit, held erroneous.-
Witmark v. Perley (Sup.) 756.

Where attorney and client agree that the at-
torney's fee shall be 50 per cent. of any judg-
ment recovered, held that the client may not,
by a summary proceeding under Code Civ. Proc.
§ 66, compel the attorney to forego his lien.-
Serwer v. Sarasohn (Sup.) 838.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

adjudication, warrant,
§ 1. Petition,
and custody of property.
Where, after receiver has been appointed in
state court for a firm, the firm is adjudicated
bankrupt, the state receiver must pay over the
funds to the court in bankruptcy and look to it
for his compensation.-Bloch v. Bloch (Sup.)
1047.

« PreviousContinue »