« PreviousContinue »
ACTION ON THE CASE.
Inconsistent with testimony as basis for im-
peachment of witness, see "Witnesses," $ 3.
In particular proceedings.
Intervention, see "Parties," $ 1.
Estoppel on appeal to deny existence of evi-
dence as to age, see “Appeal,” $ 5.
See “Principal and Agent."
Law defining adulteration of vinegar as un-
Partial invalidity of agricultural law, see "Stat-
utes,' $ 1.
Suspension of power of alienation of property,
§ 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-
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
other right.--Fortier v. Delaware, L. & W. heirs, whether citizens or aliens, held not to
apply to land taken by descent.-Stewart v.
Russell (Sup.) 625.
See “Divorce," $ 2.
and 120 New York State Reporter ALTERATION.
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.
Under inheritance tax laws, see "Taxation." ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
$ 7. See "Reformation of Instruments."
Review of criminal prosecutions.
See "Criminal Law," $ 5; "Homicide," $5. AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS. 8 1. Decisions reviewable.
Judgment entered without decision of court, Acknowledgments before, see "Acknowledg- no motion to vacate being made, held reversible. ment," $ 1.
|--Kent v. Common Council of City of Bingham. Let
ton (Sup.) 411. AMENDMENT.
$ 2. 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 in
able.-Carter v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) C. ! dence," $ 8.
206. Keeping and use of in cities, see “Municipal Corporations," $ 4.
On appeal from order refusing new trial, court Presumptions as to disposition of dog, see "Evi- may determine sufficiency of evidence, though dence," 8 2.
no motion was made on trial.-Glaser 5. Michel
son (Sup.) 286. Where one, with kvowledge 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.
Gormau 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 bs tbe a genfrei (Sup.) 180.
question, is not ground for reversal; do motion
being made to strike it out.-Rosenblatt r. In an action against a husband and wife for Joseph M. Cohen House Wrecking Co. (Sup.) da na personal injuries inflicted by a dog, the com- 801. plaint is properly dismissed against the wife, where the evidence does not connect her with the contract sued on was not admissible under
Objection that the evidence as to breach of the ownership of the dog.–Boler v. Sorgenfreithe answer, not having been made at the trial Healer (Sup.) 180.
may not be made on appeal. -Hellinger v, Jar ANSWER.
shall (Sup.) 1031.
§ 4. Record and proceedings not in recIn pleading, see "Pleading," $ 3.
Presumption of sufficiency of evidence to sus ANTENUPTIAL CONTRACTS. tain referee's findings indulged in absence of
case on appeal, not falling within Code Cis. 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. Proc See "New Trial."
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.
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: fi 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 F. Griffin (Sup. Revicw in particular civil actions. 579. 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
pers on file, before an appeal founded on a A judgment on conflicting evidence will not
to permit review on appeal.-Boehringer v. Deitch v. Feder (Sup.) 802; Keating v. Mott
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
preme Court must examine the entire record. (Sup.) 24.
Any error in excluding the question, put to
allowed to state that he gave the goods to a
certain driver named.-Brill v. Levin (Sup.) 109.
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.)
was filed. Kent v. Common
In action on account stated, where the ex-
istence of account was put in issue, exclusion
prejudice.-Jordan v. Underhill (Sup.) 620.
ence as to the age of the child, so as to ex- | 633.
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-
Corleonese Francesco Bentivegna
thrown from the car, held prejudicial error.-
immaterial issue is harmless.-E. H. Ogden
Lumber Co. v. Busse (Sup.) 1098.
and 120 New York State Reporter $ 8. Determination and disposition of In a prosecution for assault, a verdict of con
viction held coutrary 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 “Ma175.
nicipal Corporations," $ 3.
Of tax, see "Taxation," $ 3. A judgment dismissing the complaint on the 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, $ 249.-Coben v. Boccuzzi (Sup.) veyances." 187.
In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," $ 2. Under express provisions of Code Civ. Proc. of insurance, see "Insurance," } 3. & 1022, prior to amendment hy Laws 1903, c.
Of note, see "Bills and Notes," $ 2. 85, p. 237, the Appellate Division must review a
& 1. Requisites and validity, short-form decision on both law and fact.
Where several stockholders in a corporation Multz v. Price (Sup.) 480.
were induced to purchase their stock bf 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 recorery for the entire wrong by the trial court, the Appellate Division, on the might be had in a single action.-Benedict . 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
of action for its conversion.-Rothschild v. A.
len (Sup.) 42.
ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF
See "Bankruptcy," $ 1.
ASSOCIATIONS. Or receivers of foreign corporations, see “Cor. See "Beneficial Associations."
porations," $ 6. Of trustee, see “Trusts,” g 3.
An action cannot be maintained against an officer of au unincorporated association of more
than seren members, unless all of•the associates APPRENTICES.
were liable jointly or severally.- Hosman .
Kinneally (Sup.) 263. Attempt to get possession of nonresident infant jockey, for purposes of gain, all the par
Members of an unincorporated political organties being residents of another state, will not ization held not liable for services of a person be entertained by the Supreme Court.-Reiss v. employed by the manager of a paper putlistPlicque (Sup.) 701.
ed by the organization, without proof of his
authority to pledge their individual creditARBITRATION AND AWARD.
Hosman v. Kinneally (Sup.) 263.
ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.
See “Account Stated"; "Yoney Lent"; "Work
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 reorganized corIn a prosecution for assault, an instruction on poration, see "Corporations," $ 4. self-defense hold erroneous.-People v. Dank- of risk by employé, see "Master and Serraut," berg (Sup.) 423.
The statute of limitations does not begin to
ruin against an attorney's claim for compensa-
tion until the termination of his relation as at-
Client held not entitled to recover fees pre-
Riehl v. Levy (Sup.) 464.
torney to continue the suit, held erroneous.-
Witmark v. Perley (Sup.) 756.
Where attorney and client agree that the at-
ment recovered, held that the client may not,
3. Proceedings to support or enforce.
ceiver, see "Receivers," $ 1.
proval of receiver's contract for employment
of attorney, see “Mandamus," § 1.
proval of receiver's contract for employment Of agent, see “Principal and Agent," $ 3.
Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client,” $ 1.
*Trusts," $ 4.
motor vehicles as class legislation, see "Con-
stitutional Law," $ 4.
tions," § 4.
In an action by plaintiff for work in polishing
work by a defect in the machine furnished by
In an action against an attorney for breach
and custody of property.
state court for a firm, the firm is adjudicated