ACTION ON THE CASE. AFFIDAVITS. Inconsistent with testimony as basis for im- peachment of witness, see "Witnesses," $ 3. In particular proceedings. Intervention, see “Parties," $ 1. AGE. Estoppel on appeal to deny existence of evi- dence as to age, see “Appeal," $ 5. AGENCY. See “Principal and Agent." AGREEMENT. AGRICULTURE. Law defining adulteration of vinegar as un. § 4. utes," 8 1. ALIENATION. Suspension of power of alienation of property, see "Perpetuities.” ALIENS. § 1. Disabilities. An alien's right to take real estate in New force at the time of the death of the owner art v. Russell (Sup.) 625. Where plaintiff's grandfather was living at the time of the death of S., and would have in- plaintiff could not recover such real estate, Stewart v. Russell (Sup.) 625. Laws 1845, p. 95, c. 115, $ 4, as amended by Laws 1875, p. 32, c. 38, providing for the 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- $ 2. or $ 2. and 120 New York State Reporter ALTERATION. Review in special proceedings. Assessment of taxes, see "Taxation," § 3. Of geographical political divisions, Bee Proceedings before referee, see "Reference," “Schools and School Districts," $ 1. $ 2. Under inheritance tax laws, see “Taxation," ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. $ 7. Review of criminal prosecutions. See "Reformation of Instruments." See "Criminal Law,” g 5; "Homicide," § 5. AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS. f 1. Decisions reviewable. Judgment entered without decision of court, Acknowledgments before, see "Acknowledg- no motion to vacate being made, held rerersible. ment,” $ 1. --Kent v. Common Council of City of Binghan ton (Sup.) 411. AMENDMENT. Right of review. A party who fails to take advantage of an of particular legal proceedings. order granting him a new trial has no ground See “Pleading," § 5; “Process," $ 3. for complaint, on an appeal from the judgment. Pleading in proceeding before referee, see "Ref- --Carter v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 206. erence.”' § 3. Presentation and reservation in lower court of grounds of review. ANIMALS. On appeal from a judgment, the question as See “Game." to the reasonableness of conditions imposed in Expert testimony as to value of, see "Evi- an order granting a new trial held not rerier. dence," 8 8. able.-Carter v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 206. Keeping and use of in cities, see "Municipal Corporations," 8 4. On appeal from order refusing new trial, pourt Presumptions as to disposition of dog, see "Evi- may determine sufficiency of eridence, though dence," $ 2. no motion was made on trial.-Glaser F. Micbel son (Sup.) 286. Where one, with kuowledge of the propensities of a vicious dog, keeps it, if the dog does Where the instructions do not fully state the mischief, negligence will be presumed.-Boler v. correct theory of the case, there must be a new Sorgenfrei (Sup.) 180. trial, though plaintiff did not except thereto. Gorman v. Milliken (Sup.) 699. Evidence in action for personal injuries inflicted by vicious dog held sufficient to make out Statement of a witness, open to the criticism a prima facie case for plaintiff.—Boler v. Sor- of expressing an opinion not called for be the geufrei (Sup.) 180. question, is not ground for reversal; no motion being made to strike it out.-Rosenblatt 5. In an action against a husband and wife for Joseph M. Cohen House Wrecking Co. (Sup.) personal injuries inflicted by a dog, the com- 801. plaint is properly dismissed against the wife, where the evidence does not counect her with Objection that the evidence as to breach of the ownership of the dog.-Boler v, Sorgenfrei the contract sued on was not admissible under (Sup.) 180. the answer, not having been made at the trial, may not be made on appeal.-Hellinger v. Var ANSWER. shall (Sup.) 1031. § 4. Record and proceedings not in recIn pleading, see “Pleading," $ 3. ord. Presumption of sufficiency of evidence to susANTENUPTIAL CONTRACTS. tain referee's findings indulged in absence of case on appeal, not falling within Code Cir. See "Husband and Wife," $ 2. Proc. $ 1022.- Tompkins v. Morton Trust Co. (Sup.) 520. APPEAL. Question presented on appeal from referee's judgment, not falling within Code Cir. Proe See "New Trial." 1022, held to be whether facts found justified Appellate jurisdiction of particular courts, see Co. (Sup.) 520. conclusions of law.–Tompkins v. Morton Trust "Courts," $ 3. Costs, see "Costs," $ 4. Where a case on appeal has no certificate Review of proceedings of justices of the peace, stating that it contains all the evidence taken see “Justices of the Peace," 8 1. on the trial, the appellate court will not er. Stay of action pending appeal in different ac amine the facts; but in an action tried by s tion, see “Action," $ 2. jury it may review the exceptions to the rul ings of the trial justice.-Baker 5. Griffin (Sup. Review in particular civil actions. 3579. See "Specific Performance," $ 4. Under Code Civ. Proc. $ 1353, the judge In municipal courts, see “Courts," $ 2. trying the cause should order the printed pa 9 a person file, before an appeal founded on A judgment on conflicting evidence will not (Sup.) 242. (Sup.) 1041. Unless it can be said with reasonable certain- ing of a fact would not be justified.-Palmer $ 7. Harmless error. Amendment of auswer in action on fire in- surance policy, setting up failure to mail proofs of loss, held not prejudicial to plaintiff.-Huse Any error in excluding the question, put to allowed to state that he gave the goods to a Iu a suit for separation, the erroneous admis- in-law was harmless, where other evidence en- 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- of certain evidence held prejudicial error.- prejudice.-Jordan v. Underhill (Sup.) 620. 633, too favorable to defendant.-Heyert v. Reub- man (Sup.) 797. rences favoring trial justice's decision.-Cul- ted fact held harmless.-Pescia v. Societa Co- operativa Corleonese Francesco Bentivegna personal injury case against a street car com- thrown from the car, held prejudicial error.-- 1052. cause. and 120 New York State Reporter $ 8. Determination and disposition of In a prosecution for assault, a verdict of con viction 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 ASSESSMENT. remittitur by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court must conform its order to the re- Of compensation for property taken for pubmittitur, and error therein can be corrected only lic use, see “Eminent Domain," $ 3. by the Court of Appeals.-Zapf v. Carter (Sup.) | Of expenses of public improvements, see “Mu175. nicipal Corporations," $ 3. A judgment dismissing the complaint on the Of tax, see “Taxation,” $ 3. merits affirmed, notwithstanding it did not clearly appear from the return on appeal that ASSIGNMENTS. it was at the close of the whole case, as required by Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. Fraud as to creditors, see "Fraudulent Con1561, c. 580, $ 219.-Cohen v. Boccuzzi (Sup.) veyances." 187. In bankruptcy, see “Bankruptcy," 8 2. Under express provisions of Code Civ. Proc. of insurance, see "Insurance," $ 3. 1022. prior to amendment by Laws 1903, c. Of note, see “Bills and Notes," $ 2. 85, p. 237, the Appellate Division must review a short-form decision on both law and fact. § 1. Requisites and validity, Where several stockholders in a corporation Multz v. Price (Sup.) 480. were induced to purchase their stock by defendWhere a building contractor was entitled to ant’s misrepresentations, they were entitled to be allowed a large part of, if not the entire. assign their causes of action for deceit to plaintime for which a penalty for delay was charged tiff, in order that a recovery for the entire wrong by the trial court, the Appellate Division, on the might be had in a single action.-Benedict 5. contractor's appeal, was required to order a Guardian Trust Co. (Sup.) 370. new trial.--Small v. Burke (Sup.) 1066. § 2. Actions. Assignment of stock held to carry with it right APPLIANCES. of action for its conversion.-Rothschild v. Al len (Sup.) 42. Liability of employer for defects, see "Master and Servant," $ 3. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF APPLICATION. CREDITORS. For security for costs, see "Costs," $ 2. See "Bankruptcy," $ 1. APPOINTMENT. ASSOCIATIONS. of receivers of foreign corporations, see “Cor- See “Beneficial Associations." porations," $ 6. Of trustee, see “Trusts," $ 3. An action cannot be maintained against an officer of au unincorporated association of more APPRENTICES. than seven members, unless all of the associates were liable jointly or severally.-Hosman 5. Kinneally (Sup.) 263. Attempt to get possession of nonresident infant jockey, for purposes of gain, all the par Members of an unincorporated political orgadties being residents of another state, will notization held not liable for services of a person be entertained by the Supreme Court.-Reiss v. employed by the manager of a paper publishPlicque (Sup.) 701, ed by the organization, without proof of his Hosman v. Kinneally (Sup.) 263. ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF. See “Account Stated"; "Yoney Lent"; “Work ASSAULT AND BATTERY. and Labor." Jurisdiction of municipal courts as to action for assault on passenger, see "Courts," $ 2. ASSUMPTION. § 1. Criminal responsibility. Of debts of old corporation by reorga nized corIn a prosecution for assault, an instruction on poration, see "Corporations," $ 4. self-defense held erroneous.--People v. Dank- oi risk by employé, see “Master and Serrant," berg (Sup.) 423. $ 2. ATTACHMENT. 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- 10. Client held not entitled to recover fees pre- Riehl v. Levy (Sup.) 464. Order allowing financially responsible plaintiff torney to continue the suit, held erroneous.-- Witmark v. Perley (Sup.) 756. Where attorney and client agree that the at- ATTORNEY GENERAL, ceiver, see "Receivers," $ 1. Control by mandamus of attorney general's ap- proval of receiver's contract for employment of attorney, see “Mandamus," $ 1. AUTHORITY. proval of receiver's contract for employment Of agent, see “Principal and Agent," $ 3. Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client,” $ 1. torney's fees, see “Dismissal and Nonsuit,” | Of municipal court to award costs, see "Costs," $ 1. trators," $ 1. AUTOMOBILES. motor vehicles as class legislation, see "Con- stitutional Law," $ 4. AWNINGS. tions," § 4. BAILMENT. 2; “Warehousemen." In an action by plaintiff for work in polishing diamonds, defendant was not entitled to set off defendant.–Vroman v. Kryn (Sup.) 94. BANKRUPTCY. adjudication, warrant, and custody of property. state court for a firm, the firm is adjudicated 1047. |